I identify strongly with vast swaths of your post, which reaffirms my plans to begin some medication management within the month. (My psych provider was a bit concerned about my blood pressure, so he/she had me visit a PCP who wants to monitor my blood pressure for a month before he signs off on proceeding with stimulant medication, or I'd be on it now).
For me, I was diagnosed when I was in 4th grade, but my mother didn't want to medicate. I was able to more or less cope a little bit while school and such gave me structure - I was able to cope as long as school provided me with strong structure. But as soon as all that structure started to dissolve I began to struggle quite a bit, and three years ago any structure provided by others all but dissipated.
It took about a month from diagnosis to beginning medication- my psychiatrist wanted to look into my previous hospital stay, have conversations with my therapist: there was definitely an unspoken worry about my past alcohol abuse.
Spoken like someone who has never really had to deal with severe focus problems.
That's a lot like telling someone who is learning to walk again after an injury that they don't need those fancy "crutches" or "slings" that pansies use - people with real gumption just hop out of bed. If they break their noses a few times along the way, they just need to remember that they aren't taking the path of least resistance, and that it's a sign that they aren't weak people.
I'll probably be starting medication management in about a month, after 31 years worth of trying to make it work for myself. It was manageable previously because I had lots of structure provided to me to lean on - from school, from bosses, whatever. Now that I'm the one providing structure for myself and others, I've found that I simply can't function. I've tried for three years to self structure with all the self-help you can think of. I don't want to be medicated forever, but I really need something to help me focus just a little bit so that I can develop good habits.
But isn't what's happening here a change to the coding style to match the style used by BSD? That might be fun for BSD coders, but is that actually helping improve the OpenSSL code?
Well, that'd be useless to move from tabs to spaces or from n spaces to m spaces in this context, but as far as I've observed, OpenSSL codebase uses the unconventional Whitesmiths style [1][2][3], which might be a burden on the developers to navigate.
The entire email transation between a sender and a recipient usually looks like this:
Sending Client [--A---> Sender SMTP Server [--B---> Recipient SMTP Server [--C--> Recipient IMAP/POP server <---D----] Recipient Client
Connections A and D are easily possible to encrypt, provided your provider provides SSL/TLS on their SMTP and IMAP/POP servers. Most usually do. Connection C is usually local to a single machine, or for large email providers will go over an intranet of some kind.
What is at issue is connection B, which goes over the public internet. That is almost always in clear text, as most of this infrastructure was designed 30 years ago and hasn't evolved much since then. If you are sending email within a single provider (e.g. sender@gmail.com to recipient@gmail.com), such delivery can be trivially encrypted.
I don't suppose anyone has any stats (or even educated guesses) about how many mail servers you'd not be able to connect/send to if you enforced TLS connections from your outgoing SMTP server (as in, refused to send data to servers that didn't respond appropriately to a STARTTLS command)?
Having run a mail server that used to have a self-signed cert and that now doesn't offer starttls at all, I can tell you I experienced zero failed deliveries (well, nobody has ever complained, and I still get all the mail I expect to get). Maybe incoming mail will use starttls if available, but if it's not (mitm, fake mx record, etc.) the remote server isn't going to stop. It just delivers in plaintext.
I mean, it's trival to see this is true. Open up your mail server's configuration file. Where's the line that specifies trusted root CAs for relaying to remote servers? Oh, there isn't one? So how does it verify the chain of trust?
(I realize I didn't quite address your question. Solid answer: at least one. But I'm fairly confident the number of server configured as you suggest is extremely close to zero.)
For me, I was diagnosed when I was in 4th grade, but my mother didn't want to medicate. I was able to more or less cope a little bit while school and such gave me structure - I was able to cope as long as school provided me with strong structure. But as soon as all that structure started to dissolve I began to struggle quite a bit, and three years ago any structure provided by others all but dissipated.
Thanks for sharing.