On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Vin King <vin.king@gmail.com> wrote:
DALnet has successfully done no hostmasking for over a decade, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it, in my opinion. Client side ssl, though, I feel is a reasonable enhancement request. What with more places offering wifi, and internet options on the go these days, I feel a more secure client to server communication is higher priority than hostmask offerings.
If it doesn't exhibit problems, don't assume it's not broke. Something's broke, but it's not the code. I have no opinions on hostmasks. I have used and continue to use networks with and without it. However, many users prefer networks with hostmasking. I've not yet found a single person who would refuse to use a network because it did have masking. On top of the SSL, I do think services should use some kind of OTP system, since many public internet places have keyloggers. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Aaron Wiebe <epiphani@gmail.com> wrote:
Client-side SSL is already merged into my tree and being actively tested. It will be in the next minor release.
Could you do a format-patch -M -C --stdout between b5113839c45b00acde70b9db2850fec5d00e7d43 and your HEAD, and shoot a copy my way?