On 2/5/20 2:52 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
I think it's worth pointing out that this was an experimental feature
that users explicitly had to opt into. The original statement feels
misleading to me.
That's how it started, further looking (sorry, was replying from my
phone before) give things li
On Feb 05 2020, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On February 5, 2020 9:49:36 AM UTC, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>>On Feb 04 2020, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>>> Google has at some point had results from
>>> Gmail in the web search results (no idea if they currently do).
>>
>>Would you have a reference for t
On February 5, 2020 9:49:36 AM UTC, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
>On Feb 04 2020, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> Google has at some point had results from
>> Gmail in the web search results (no idea if they currently do).
>
>Would you have a reference for this please?
Here is a news report from when th
On Feb 04 2020, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Google has at some point had results from
> Gmail in the web search results (no idea if they currently do).
Would you have a reference for this please?
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
On 2/3/20 11:51 AM, Marvin Renich wrote:
As a specific example of unnecessary default security, take the "https
everywhere" campaign. Having https available on most servers is
definitely good. However, if you explicitly go to
http://www.google.com/ you are redirected to the https version. Of
On 2020-02-03 at 11:51, Marvin Renich wrote:
> As a specific example of unnecessary default security, take the
> "https everywhere" campaign. Having https available on most servers
> is definitely good. However, if you explicitly go to
> http://www.google.com/ you are redirected to the https ve
* Richard Laager [200129 19:05]:
> On 1/29/20 8:28 AM, Marvin Renich wrote:
> There are plenty of shades of
> grey in this, and what counts as "minimal", "medium", or "massive" is
> going to be at least somewhat subjective.
Completely agree.
> I'd say that "massive breakage" (breaking lots of th
[ Note: I have reordered the quoted text blocks. ]
On 1/29/20 8:28 AM, Marvin Renich wrote:
> On the other hand, I do agree with using unstable and testing to
> determine the level of disruption, on the condition that there is a
> _commitment_ to removing the feature before stable release if the
>
I have no opinion about this specific feature; at first glance it looks
like it might be a reasonable thing to do. On the other hand, I
strongly disagree with this statement as a general rule:
> Unless massive breakage is expected, the default should
> be the most secure option.
This is the wron
9 matches
Mail list logo
