Re: [PATCH] Re: PEAP authentication very strange problem! PLEASE HELP

2004-01-19 Thread Alan DeKok
Mike Saywell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Turns out the problem was not as Alan suspected. Seems that a return > value got tweaked during a re-structuring of the code. > > Anyway here's the (very small) patch: Added, thanks. Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.fr

Re: [PATCH] Re: PEAP authentication very strange problem! PLEASE HELP

2004-01-18 Thread Alan DeKok
Mike Saywell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Turns out the problem was not as Alan suspected. Seems that a return > value got tweaked during a re-structuring of the code. Ah... that's probably my fault. Sorry. > Anyway here's the (very small) patch: The change results in the magic PEAP "succe

Re: [PATCH] Re: PEAP authentication very strange problem! PLEASE HELP

2004-01-18 Thread Mike Saywell
that an ip > least time problem, or a cookie/temp file problem or the modifed peap > module's problem? > > TIA > > > >From: Mike Saywell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: [PATCH] Re: PEAP

RE: [PATCH] Re: PEAP authentication very strange problem! PLEASE HELP

2004-01-17 Thread matt morris
or the modifed peap module's problem? TIA From: Mike Saywell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PATCH] Re: PEAP authentication very strange problem! PLEASE HELP Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 02:25:27 + It took me a while to figure out what was

Re: [PATCH] Re: PEAP authentication very strange problem! PLEASE HELP

2004-01-16 Thread garelli
hi! I would like to test your patch but I don't know where I must put it! Should I have to create a file and put your patch inside? and the file must be put in which directory? thanks a lot! renaud > It took me a while to figure out what was going on here... > > Turns out the problem was not as A

[PATCH] Re: PEAP authentication very strange problem! PLEASE HELP

2004-01-15 Thread Mike Saywell
It took me a while to figure out what was going on here... Turns out the problem was not as Alan suspected. Seems that a return value got tweaked during a re-structuring of the code. Anyway here's the (very small) patch: --- peap.c.orig Fri Jan 16 02:01:45 2004 +++ peap.c Fri Jan 16 02:02: