14 Nov
2008
14 Nov
'08
3:38 p.m.
Hi Jan,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 01:59:15PM -0000, Jan Henkins wrote:
Those sites are almost the ideal candidate for CAcert is inclusion,
given the nature of the users, yet still Windows user agents make up
over 70% of hits to the login forms on the above SSL sites. Most of
these are Firefox but still a healthy minority are Internet
Explorer.
So unless Firefox on Windows distributes CAcert's root certificate,
IMHO it would have been a waste of time for me to explore the CAcert
route. I realise this is a chicken before the egg situation, but I
don't have time to explain the issues every time someone complains
that Firefox says Bitfolk's sites are insecure.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB
'Ĺo Andy
On Fri, November 14, 2008 13:23, Andy Smith wrote:
Oops! Very sorry, I will ask in future.
I hope you don't mind me posting this back to
the list. I got the
feeling you intended it to go there.
Not the original intention, but it's OK if it does. See:
http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/InclusionStatus
Note the lack of inclusion for Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox or
Safari.[1]
What percentage of hits to {lists,panel,tools}.bitfolk.com do you
think come from Debian / Ubuntu / Gentoo / CentOS / Mandriva desktop
users?
Well, that is not something I can surmise about, since I don't have access
to your server logs. :-) Why don't you tell us anyway? Not necessary, but
it would be interesting to know.