[Operators] R: Re: IM Observatory @ xmpp.net
moonchild at palemoon.org
Fri Nov 1 13:18:19 UTC 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 01/11/2013 14:02, Marco Cirillo wrote:
> Security is not favoritism, you can suitably support 112/128 bits
I wasn't debating that.
I was saying that using one single criterion (in this case the security
score) to push servers to the foreground is leaning towards favoritism. As
already pointed out by Tobias, there are many more factors to weigh in,
where IMHO a better sorting criterion would be physical location of the
server, and presenting the list in a way where users can easily make a sane
choice from there. Main reasoning being: don't send traffic through more
systems/across more borders than you have to. The less exposure to
potentially compromised/insecure hops, the better.
> P.S. The year is 2013 not 1998.. Maybe it's time to start acting
> according to that.
No need to be snarky >:I
My cipher remark was a example, nothing more. Making a point that "offering
more flexibility lowers the score".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Operators