On 25 June 2016 at 07:38, Lyallex wrote:
> On 24 June 2016 at 21:50, Christopher Schultz
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Lyallax,
>>
>> Okay, one last time before I start ignoring you. We really are trying
>> to be helpful. But nobody knows why who are so exer
On 24 June 2016 at 21:50, Christopher Schultz
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Lyallax,
>
> Okay, one last time before I start ignoring you. We really are trying
> to be helpful. But nobody knows why who are so exercised about this.
>
> You haven't:
>
> a) Clearly exp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Lyallax,
Okay, one last time before I start ignoring you. We really are trying
to be helpful. But nobody knows why who are so exercised about this.
You haven't:
a) Clearly explained what you want to do (redirect which requests?
with what response
On 24 June 2016 at 15:37, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24 June 2016 11:51:25 BST, Lyallex wrote:
>
>
>
>>However I can't get my head around your assertion that forcing the use
>>of TLS is a 'user data constraint'
>
> Have a look in the Servlet specification for that phrase. I don't have a copy
> to
On 24 June 2016 at 16:45, Christopher Schultz
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
> 3. You can redirect anything yourself if you want to. The only reason
> for the Realm option was because Tomcat itself is issuing this
> particular redirect based upon an authentication si
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Lyllax,
On 6/24/16 1:30 AM, Lyallex wrote:
> On 23 June 2016 at 19:43, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 23/06/2016 17:56, Lyallex wrote:
>>> I'm trying to understand why a recent change in 7.0.70 has been
>>> done the way it has. The change makes absolutel
On 24 June 2016 11:51:25 BST, Lyallex wrote:
>However I can't get my head around your assertion that forcing the use
>of TLS is a 'user data constraint'
Have a look in the Servlet specification for that phrase. I don't have a copy
to hand right now but it will be in the security section.
>
On 24 June 2016 at 10:01, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 06:30, Lyallex wrote:
>
>
>
>> I think the current solution to 59399 need rethinking
>>
>> My commercial site has been up for years, there are links dating back
>> years that refer to the old http scheme
>> I have no control over this,
On 24/06/2016 06:30, Lyallex wrote:
> I think the current solution to 59399 need rethinking
>
> My commercial site has been up for years, there are links dating back
> years that refer to the old http scheme
> I have no control over this, now, whenever I get a hit from an 'old'
> link I need to
On 23 June 2016 at 19:43, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 23/06/2016 17:56, Lyallex wrote:
>> I'm trying to understand why a recent change in 7.0.70 has been done
>> the way it has.
>> The change makes absolutely no sense to me and I need to ask the
>> implementer why in the name of sanity he did what he
On 23/06/2016 17:56, Lyallex wrote:
> I'm trying to understand why a recent change in 7.0.70 has been done
> the way it has.
> The change makes absolutely no sense to me and I need to ask the
> implementer why in the name of sanity he did what he did.
> I'm talking to you markt whoever you are :-)
I'm trying to understand why a recent change in 7.0.70 has been done
the way it has.
The change makes absolutely no sense to me and I need to ask the
implementer why in the name of sanity he did what he did.
I'm talking to you markt whoever you are :-)
Where should I ask the question? dev list?
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
