In my opinion, the Internet should not be removing support for older SSL. The highest SSL version that is common to server and client should always be used.
> The highest SSL version that is common to server and client should always be used.
That is how it works. What you're missing is that everyone, both servers and clients, agrees that supporting old SSL versions is a bad idea. And they're right.
If that were the actual principle being accurately followed, the first feature to have been removed from browsers would have been plain HTTP before any version of SSL.
Plain HTTP is what people resort to when their browser refuses to connect to an old device or server using HTTPS, which is worse than old SSL.
No, because clear lack of security is better than faux security. With older SSL versions, it's security that even creates extra risk for all clients (by leaking server secrets and allowing ciphersuites that don't have PFS).
The absurd idea that a user will have a 20 year old encrypted mail, because software still supports it, is ridiculous. What really happens is someone has a 20 year old mail no matter what, itcwill always exist, and the choice is, support it or not. Support it to be read, support it to be converted, warn the user, suggest fixes.
And your SSL example is senseless! In what world do you envision super secure stuff alongside weaker legacy, on the same damned server. You literally are not thinking sensibility about any of this, you examples are paper tigers.
That is how it works. What you're missing is that everyone, both servers and clients, agrees that supporting old SSL versions is a bad idea. And they're right.