Hi all,
Probably a slap-on-the-forehead question...
I've a server with 2 cnames... the machine is rarely accessed by its real
name. One vhost is accessed both SSL and non-SSL. The other is only non-SSL
at this time.
Problem being when I add another VirtualHost directive to accept
connections on
I just checked the CVS port branch at the FreeBSD site and the last
version there is 2.0.15. I was wondering if someone knew if this
was going to be upgraded to the 2.1 branch in the near future.
/Paul
On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay, but a lot of s
On Wed, Dec 02, 1998, Paul Wolstenholme wrote:
> I just checked the CVS port branch at the FreeBSD site and the last
> version there is 2.0.15. I was wondering if someone knew if this
> was going to be upgraded to the 2.1 branch in the near future.
I had still no time for this, but I'm now w
Here is the next pure bugfixing release. In addition to other minor fixes it
mainly solves the problem where under Linux boxes the DBM library wasn't
correctly found.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>[...]
> Changes with mod_ssl 2.1.2 (30-Nov-1998 to 03-Dec-1998)
>[...]
The FreeBSD port is now again in sync with the current release version: I've
updated the www/apache13-modssl port to Apache 1.3.3 + mod_ssl 2.1.2 now.
Happy packaging ;-)
Because some people asked for this (one even here on this list) I should give
an official statement about the state of the mod_ssl 2.0 branch. Here it is:
Now that mod_ssl 2.1 is out (currently already as version 2.1.2) this
branch is now the current release/stable/default branch. All bug
Have we received any "in print" confirmation from RSA with regards to us using
one license from a commercial package to build and use mod_ssl in the States?
Regards,
dsp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -+-<|>-+- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
The two most oft overlooked motor vehicle laws: Inertia and Tonnag
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998, Dave Paris wrote:
> Have we received any "in print" confirmation from RSA with regards to us using
> one license from a commercial package to build and use mod_ssl in the States?
No, we've not received anything on paper and we'll not receive anything on
paper, of course. W
Hi, All!
I`m new in this list and my firt post, I`m afraid, isnt related to the
topic. Instead it talks with securing "standard" network daemons. I just
released a new URL and want to share it with you:
http://mike.daewoo.com.pl/computer/stunnel/
--
Dimitar Atanasov Stoikov | pgp fingerpr
Full_Name: Jake Buchholz
Version: 2.1.1
OS: linux 2.0.36
Submission from: windowpane.execpc.com (169.207.1.11)
mod_ssl 2.1.x doesn't pick up the primary port number for the server
from the Listen directive the way 2.0.x appears to have done. Using
the Port directive solves the problem, but I'm
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Full_Name: Jake Buchholz
> Version: 2.1.1
> OS: linux 2.0.36
> Submission from: windowpane.execpc.com (169.207.1.11)
>
> mod_ssl 2.1.x doesn't pick up the primary port number for the server
> from the Listen directive the way 2.0.x appears to have
Sounds fine to concentrate on the most recent. Meanwhile, for those who
have a 2.0 install humming away happily, should there be any compelling
reason to upgrade immediately rather than, say, with the next Apache
release?
\/\/ I-I I T
Blauvelt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 05:03:14PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 1998, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Full_Name: Jake Buchholz
> > Version: 2.1.1
> > OS: linux 2.0.36
> > Submission from: windowpane.execpc.com (169.207.1.11)
> >
> > mod_ssl 2.1.x doesn't pick up the primary port
I have updated the Apache and Apache/mod_ssl pkgs for NetBSD's pkgsrc
(similar to FreeBSD's ports) system.
The NetBSD setup is rather special in that it completely splits the
installation of Apache and mod_ssl. The Apache pkg (www/apache) is
installed without mod_ssl, but does contain the EAPI a
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> Sounds fine to concentrate on the most recent. Meanwhile, for those who
> have a 2.0 install humming away happily, should there be any compelling
> reason to upgrade immediately rather than, say, with the next Apache
> release?
As long as you're h
On Thu, Dec 03, 1998, Todd Vierling wrote:
> I have updated the Apache and Apache/mod_ssl pkgs for NetBSD's pkgsrc
> (similar to FreeBSD's ports) system.
Great, I really appreciate this work for NetBSD.
Very good.
> The NetBSD setup is rather special in that it completely splits the
> installat
On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
: Just a question? Why do you have to load libcrypto.so and libssl.so manually?
: Because of a.out?
Yes. Some NetBSD ports are a.out (including the very popular i386 and
sparc), others are ELF. To reduce confusion and keep it more cross-platform
f
17 matches
Mail list logo
