In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:36:56 -0500, Rich
Salz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
rsalz> > If the file pointed at with SSL_CERT_FILE is faulty in any way, the
rsalz> > code will fall back to the built-in default. If that fails, an error
rsalz> > is generated. How much does that differ from what you said?
rsalz>
rsalz> Because you are saying: if there are any errors in the file named by
rsalz> $SSL_CERT_FILE, then I'll pretend $SSL_CERT_FILE wasn't set.
rsalz>
rsalz> I think that's bad.
Hmm... OK, I can see that point (the rule of least surprise,
basically?). Actually, you're right. I'll implement a change
accordingly.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
