Re: TLS in Gopher
On 2018-02-28 07:53 +0000, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> On 28/02/18 02:05, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> > Although I would prefer gopher+TLS have a categorical port and only be
> > accessible that way, I don't object to probing/upgrading, as long as the
> > client is smart about it.
>
> The idea of requiring a specific port number sounds like a complete
> hack.
Doesn't look hackish to me -- after all, isn't this how internet
services, including HTTPS, work? They have a default port number
assigned, which is used unless you specify a port number.
>
> Instead, can you not just cache that STARTTLS was successful and then
> immediately attempt TLS handshake when you connect next time instead of
> doing the STARTTLS upgrade?
>
> Even better, how about you just always try to do a TLS handshake and
> cache the failures instead? STARTTLS in reverse, where if the handshake
> fails you reconnect without TLS and then don't attempt a handshake again
> for a while.
>
--
Nuno Silva
Reply to: