Hello Dod,
I think the TrustedCAPath.pem that comes with ICS does not cover the root
cert that signed mail.google.com.
PLEASE do test the code against as much stress as possible. It is called a
beta because the server module is not ready yet. I mean the SSL->TCP
convertor proxy.
Best Regards,
S
Hello Fastream,
I have checked the SSL/TLS checkbox (no certificate choosed) and
unchecked "verify peer" and now it works on gmail I tested a few MB
transfert, it's ok and performances seems same as stunnel on my little
PIII-1Ghz. If I check both SSL/TLS and Verify Peer, it do not work.
Hello Dod,
Thanks for your effort. For the SSL part, this is purely ICS so I wonder
where the bug could be--in the component or app?
There is a demo called "sslsimpletcpclient" or similar in ICSv7. Does that
work there?
Can you tell me a step by step lead to the problem including host addresses.
Hello Fastream,
Tested to make POP3-SSL tunnel to Gmail like I do with STunnel ...do
not work, it connect, I see some data exchange in SSL negotiation but
no POP3 welcome banner.
regards.
FT> We are developing an alternative "secure tunneling software". Meanwhile the
FT> client side is ready.
Dear ICS Users,
We are developing an alternative "secure tunneling software". Meanwhile the
client side is ready. It is based on Wilfried's excellent Socketspy yet much
enhanced and supports SSL on the outgoing part. It uses single threaded
architecture with async ICS sockets. Performance exceeds
Hello Anton,
> *embarrassed* how these two statements combine?
> Why several Receives should cause troubles?
it is by design, only 1 receive call in the event.
> And another question. Is TWSocket.RcvdCount value reliable, i.e. if
> it = 0, then there is really no data in the socket?
Microsoft r
> > The error message I'm getting is
> >
> > Registration procedure, Shdocvw_ocx.Register in package
> > c:\program files\borland\cbuilder6\Projects\Bpl\IcsBcb60.bpl
> > raised exception class EFilerError:
> > Component TCppWebBrowser can't be registered by package icsbcb60
> > because it has alrea
Arno Garrels [TeamICS] wrote:
>AFAIK no, only if you do not read all available data OnDataAvailable
>will trigger again.
Arno Garrels [TeamICS] wrote:
>Thus calling Receive multiple times
>in a loop in on DataAvailable would not work properly.
*embarrassed* how these two statements combine? Why
