Re: SNI in 2.2.9? (Re: 2.2.9 status)

[Ian G]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

SNI in 2.2.9? (Re: 2.2.9 status)
        61495 by: Kaspar Brand

There are just a handful of useful patches in STATUS lacking
a single vote for inclusion in 2.2.9...

While not completely true for the SNI backport proposal (requires more
than a single additional vote),....

[technical stuff snipped]

So, is there still hope for SNI being added in 2.2.9...? Let me know if
there's anything else I can do to increase the chances of getting this
proposal accepted.

iang

Yes, ditto. Although I'm totally unfamiliar with the code, SNI is a big deal for users, because it makes SSL available for all the small time virtual hosts. If I had a vote I'd say do it! Making SSL available for small sites puts a big pressure on the browsers to work on their secure interfaces, which they lack right now. Are there any roadblocks that can be cleared away by external wannabe-helpfuls?

Thanks,
Kaspar

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature