Mick writes:
> On Sunday 06 Sep 2015 15:29:25 lee wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Is it possible to create a certificate that doesn't use either but a
>> wildcard only? I don't understand why or how an fqdn/IP in a
>> certificate could or should be relevant at all.
>
> It is relevant because Mozilla will
Fernando Rodriguez writes:
> On Sunday, September 06, 2015 4:29:25 PM lee wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> When creating the certificate, I have used the fqdn the host does
>> actually have and knows itself by (because I needed to fill in the
>> fields, and it seemed most reasonable to use the actual host
Mick writes:
> On Sunday 06 Sep 2015 03:45:26 lee wrote:
>> Mick writes:
>> > On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 14:06:27 lee wrote:
>
>> >> What's the solution for a server which can be reached by different fqdns
>> >> and IPs? What if the fqdns and IPs it can be reached by change over the
>> >> lifetime
On Sunday, September 06, 2015 4:29:25 PM lee wrote:
> Mick writes:
>
> > On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 17:22:24 lee wrote:
> >> Mick writes:
> >> > On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 02:08:47 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> >> >> On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
> >> >> > In this case, I happen
On Sunday, September 06, 2015 3:03:12 PM lee wrote:
> Fernando Rodriguez writes:
>
> > On Saturday, September 05, 2015 6:09:36 PM Mick wrote:
> >> On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 14:06:27 lee wrote:
> >> > Fernando Rodriguez writes:
> >> > > On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
> >> > >
On Sunday 06 Sep 2015 15:29:25 lee wrote:
> Mick writes:
> > On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 17:22:24 lee wrote:
> >> Maybe that only works with firefox?
> >
> > Yes, it seems to be the case that SeaMonkey has some GUI differences to
> > Firefox. I am on Firefox-38.2.1 at present.
>
> Does Firefox eve
On Sunday 06 Sep 2015 03:45:26 lee wrote:
> Mick writes:
> > On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 14:06:27 lee wrote:
> >> What's the solution for a server which can be reached by different fqdns
> >> and IPs? What if the fqdns and IPs it can be reached by change over the
> >> lifetime of the certificates?
>
Mick writes:
> On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 14:06:27 lee wrote:
>> Fernando Rodriguez writes:
>> > On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
>> >> In this case, I happen to have full physical access to the server and
>> >> thus to the certificate stored on it. This is not the case for, l
Fernando Rodriguez writes:
> On Saturday, September 05, 2015 6:09:36 PM Mick wrote:
>> On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 14:06:27 lee wrote:
>> > Fernando Rodriguez writes:
>> > > On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
>> > >> In this case, I happen to have full physical access to the serve
Mick writes:
> On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 22:40:09 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> Since it lets you open the exception dialog but just hangs when downloading
>> the certificate I wonder if it has something to do with your OCSP settings.
>> Check that they match mine:
>>
>> security.OCSP.GET.enabl
Mick writes:
> On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 17:22:24 lee wrote:
>> Mick writes:
>> > On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 02:08:47 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
>> >> > In this case, I happen to have full physical access to the server and
>> >> > thus to the
On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 22:40:09 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On Saturday, September 05, 2015 6:09:36 PM Mick wrote:
> > On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 14:06:27 lee wrote:
> > > Fernando Rodriguez writes:
> > > > On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
> > > >> In this case, I happen to have
On Saturday, September 05, 2015 6:09:36 PM Mick wrote:
> On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 14:06:27 lee wrote:
> > Fernando Rodriguez writes:
> > > On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
> > >> In this case, I happen to have full physical access to the server and
> > >> thus to the certificat
On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 17:22:24 lee wrote:
> Mick writes:
> > On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 02:08:47 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
> >> > In this case, I happen to have full physical access to the server and
> >> > thus to the certificate stored on
On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 14:06:27 lee wrote:
> Fernando Rodriguez writes:
> > On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
> >> In this case, I happen to have full physical access to the server and
> >> thus to the certificate stored on it. This is not the case for, let's
> >> say, an emp
Mick writes:
> On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 02:08:47 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
>> > In this case, I happen to have full physical access to the server and
>> > thus to the certificate stored on it. This is not the case for, let's
>> > say, an em
Fernando Rodriguez writes:
> On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't work. I've imported the certificate now at home, and no
>> >> matter what trust I set or whatever I do, I cannot connect, and I cannot
>> >> add an exception.
>>
>> I can (have to) do with
Fernando Rodriguez writes:
> On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
>> In this case, I happen to have full physical access to the server and
>> thus to the certificate stored on it. This is not the case for, let's
>> say, an employee checking his work-email from home whom I might
On Saturday 05 Sep 2015 02:08:47 Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
> > In this case, I happen to have full physical access to the server and
> > thus to the certificate stored on it. This is not the case for, let's
> > say, an employee checking his w
On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
> In this case, I happen to have full physical access to the server and
> thus to the certificate stored on it. This is not the case for, let's
> say, an employee checking his work-email from home whom I might give the
> login-data on the phone
On Saturday, September 05, 2015 1:05:06 AM lee wrote:
> Fernando Rodriguez writes:
>
> > On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:50:43 PM lee wrote:
> >> Mick writes:
> >>
> >> > On Friday 04 Sep 2015 08:54:19 Peter Weilbacher wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Are you sure that diving right into about:config is th
Fernando Rodriguez writes:
> On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:50:43 PM lee wrote:
>> Mick writes:
>>
>> > On Friday 04 Sep 2015 08:54:19 Peter Weilbacher wrote:
>> >
>> >> Are you sure that diving right into about:config is the best way? In
>> >> SeaMonkey, take a look under Preferences -> Priva
On Friday, September 04, 2015 9:50:43 PM lee wrote:
> Mick writes:
>
> > On Friday 04 Sep 2015 08:54:19 Peter Weilbacher wrote:
> >
> >> Are you sure that diving right into about:config is the best way? In
> >> SeaMonkey, take a look under Preferences -> Privacy & Security ->
> >> Certificates. U
Mick writes:
> On Friday 04 Sep 2015 08:54:19 Peter Weilbacher wrote:
>
>> Are you sure that diving right into about:config is the best way? In
>> SeaMonkey, take a look under Preferences -> Privacy & Security ->
>> Certificates. Under "Manage Certificates..." you can import your own
>> certifica
On Friday 04 Sep 2015 08:54:19 Peter Weilbacher wrote:
> Are you sure that diving right into about:config is the best way? In
> SeaMonkey, take a look under Preferences -> Privacy & Security ->
> Certificates. Under "Manage Certificates..." you can import your own
> certificates which I think is t
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015, lee wrote:
> Thank you. The problem is that it doesn't let me add an exception. Only
> the older versions do that. All options to add an exception are
> disabled.
>
> There is 'browser.ssl_override_behavior', the value of which is
> 2. Guessing by what that means from [2], th
lee wrote:
> Fernando Rodriguez writes:
>
>> On Thursday, September 03, 2015 9:53:39 PM lee wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> since quite a while, seamonkey and its relatives are completely broken
>>> when it comes to use self-signed certificates. They just refuse the
>>> connection to the server, blocking
On Friday, September 04, 2015 1:39:46 AM lee wrote:
> Fernando Rodriguez writes:
>
> > On Thursday, September 03, 2015 9:53:39 PM lee wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> since quite a while, seamonkey and its relatives are completely broken
> >> when it comes to use self-signed certificates. They just re
Fernando Rodriguez writes:
> On Thursday, September 03, 2015 9:53:39 PM lee wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> since quite a while, seamonkey and its relatives are completely broken
>> when it comes to use self-signed certificates. They just refuse the
>> connection to the server, blocking you from accessing
On Thursday, September 03, 2015 9:53:39 PM lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since quite a while, seamonkey and its relatives are completely broken
> when it comes to use self-signed certificates. They just refuse the
> connection to the server, blocking you from accessing your email.
>
> Is there still no s
Hi,
since quite a while, seamonkey and its relatives are completely broken
when it comes to use self-signed certificates. They just refuse the
connection to the server, blocking you from accessing your email.
Is there still no solution for this problem? I'm totally fed up with it
by now. At wo
31 matches
Mail list logo
