Closed Bug 276461 Opened 20 years ago Closed 20 years ago

Permanently accept SSL certificates for POP/IMAP mail

Categories

(SeaMonkey :: MailNews: Message Display, enhancement)

1.7 Branch
x86
Windows XP
enhancement
Not set
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 255025

People

(Reporter: KlausRusch, Assigned: sspitzer)

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

When accessing Web sites whose certificate is not valid for some reason (expired, unknown certification authority, incorrect site name) an option is given to accept the certificate once or permantently. With secure POP/IMAP mail such an option is not available, the certificate can only be accepted for a single session. It would be desirable to have the same options as with Web site certificates to the certificate once or permantently.
Attached image Screenshot
For "unknown certification authority" you can accept the certificate permanently, see Bug 221552 (this is broken atm). But this can be fixed by importing the CA. For the other two reasons (incorrect site name, expired) i think it is wanted that you can't accept this permanently, since a incorrect site name should just not happen and the certificate should be fixed.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 219678 ***
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
> For the other two reasons (incorrect site name, expired) i > think it is wanted that you can't accept this permanently, since a incorrect > site name should just not happen and the certificate should be fixed. A warning once is perfectly right, but then it should be deferred to the responsibility of the browser user to decide whether or not the certificate should be accepted, especially when getting the certificate fixed is beyond the control of the browser users (most of the time). Forcing the user to accept the warning every time increases the risk that users will use the non-secure POP/IMAP ports instead, which is worse than knowingly accepting a certificate whose name does not match (which does not do any harm to the encryption of the communication).
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: DUPLICATE → ---
This has been discussed before, see dupe. And don't reopen this bug. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 219678 ***
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago20 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: DUPLICATE → ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 255025 ***
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago20 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: