Scott Pasnikowsiki wrote:
>
> > > No. It points to the fact that the whole thing isn't tested much on
> > > machines without good randomness sources in general.
> >
> > openssl is one of those projects that could desperately use a
> > commerical reseller/support couterpart a-la redhat
> > or send
Taral wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Scott Pasnikowsiki wrote:
>
> > That sort of points to the idea that the Win32 side is not being
> > tested much. If I can confirm this is the case (that -rand is needed
> > on Win32 to gen a cert) then I have my answer. (use a commercial
> > product)
>
>
Andy Moskoff wrote:
andy, you rule. send me a copy..
-mike
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Bennett Samowich wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > This may or may not be the right place to ask this, but does anyone know of
> > "canned" utilities for certificate management. A client of ours may want to
> >
Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a copy of the RSA flier going about with a picture of a
> car on the front, in which the scurrilous claim that free software is
> not supported or maintained is made?
>
> I had one, but its, err, in use by the ASA. :-)
of course, the agrument is silly for
"Leland V. Lammert" wrote:
>
> At 04:56 PM 12/22/99 , you wrote:
> >"Leland V. Lammert" wrote:
> >
> >i don't want to sound ungrateful, but that document is useless for
> >someone
> >who wants to learn how to operate the thing. if the openssl people want
> >to get
> >people to start using it, the
k on development
and get a decent "get started with openssl document" before
i did anything else.
just some friendly advice. i'm glad you guys are volunteering your time
to begin with..
-mike hoegeman, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
