Re: Filezilla a security risk
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:48:44 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
> 08.07.2012 19:10, Camaleón:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:51:59 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
(...)
>>> For some definition of "purpose", maybe [1] Stating that 587/tcp was
>>> smtps is simply wrong, because it implies encryption on the network
>>> layer.
>>
>> When you replace a standard with another it would be fair to say that
>> both share the same essence and they are aimed to solve the same
>> problem.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that one is encrypted on the network layer
> while the other is not.
Which one, exactly?
> Especially - in contrast to what your statement implied - 587/tcp is not
> encrypted on the network layer.
Yes, it is. Or better put, it can be.
>>> Which makes "the new standard" something very different.
>>
>> To my eyes, not that different in the end.
>
> Yeah.
> Your statement that 587/tcp was smtps is simply wrong. I just corrected
> your wrong statement - nothing more. Why you feel the need to go to a
> great length to convince someone (whoever that might be) that your wrong
> statement was somehow right is completely beyond me.
If you are happy in thinking so I'm not going to try to change your mind.
Sigh.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: