Gervase Markham wrote: > OK. So instead of using our resource to fix these things, we are fixing > the problem that they can't afford $40 for SSL hosting? > > a.m.o. isn't the best thing, but it's free. Hosting your own with SSL > isn't free, but it gives you more flexibility. I really think the two > options available here cover all the bases. > > We seem to be planning to spend a great deal of resource to enable > people to not use our infrastructure, and also not spend $40. Is this > really cost-effective? I agree! You can't have it both ways....Mozilla Add-ons provides a reasonable solution which is also free for developers to use (Except I suggest to improve login procedures and switch to certificate login instead of user/pass pairs so). If one really needs to have the application self-hosted, than the interested party has to cover the costs obviously, which isn't really such a big deal either (If you are picky then I guess you can afford it ;-)).
However from the original question of this thread I think the question was, if to require add-ons to be served from SSL secured sites or other secure mechanism (policy wise). -- Regards Signer: Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd. Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1.213.341.0390 _______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
