On 04/04/2013 03:56, Christian Balzer wrote:
2. Despite the fact that it will be trivial for anybody to determine that
OEM A is now hosted with us, a SAN SSL makes all the SANs visible in one
go, something they probably don't want.
But someone smart enough to be able to look at a certificate,
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 22:21:43 +0300 Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 3.4.2013, at 10.59, Christian Balzer wrote:
>
> > I'm looking into deploying dovecot as a proxy, currently using
> > perdition. Have been using dovecot on the actual servers for years,
> > nearly a decade. So far just 1.x, but for the p
On 3.4.2013, at 10.59, Christian Balzer wrote:
> I'm looking into deploying dovecot as a proxy, currently using perdition.
> Have been using dovecot on the actual servers for years, nearly a decade.
> So far just 1.x, but for the proxy it will have to be 2.x (2.1.7 is the
> current Debian version
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:13:41 +0100 Ed W wrote:
> Hi
>
> > I presume to best support all(?) clients out there is to have
> > "local_name" sections for SNI first and then "local" sections for IP
> > address based certs. It is my understanding that SNI needs to be
> > requested by the client, so asi
Hi
I presume to best support all(?) clients out there is to have "local_name"
sections for SNI first and then "local" sections for IP address based
certs. It is my understanding that SNI needs to be requested by the
client, so aside from client bugs (nah, those don't exist ^o^) every
client shou
Hello,
I'm looking into deploying dovecot as a proxy, currently using perdition.
Have been using dovecot on the actual servers for years, nearly a decade.
So far just 1.x, but for the proxy it will have to be 2.x (2.1.7 is the
current Debian version), as the trigger for this change is the need to
