DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15625>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15625 mention mod_ssl in http://nagoya.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/*/*.README Summary: mention mod_ssl in http://nagoya.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/*/*.README Product: Apache httpd-2.0 Version: 2.0.32 Platform: Other OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: Other Component: Documentation AssignedTo: [email protected] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As mentioned in http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15624, a naive admin can end up believing to ssl-protect his content under port 443 while it is still served as http. Because security as continuously increasing in importance, it should become more and more the default that httpd's are configured to also include https. One contributing factor for the possible error described above is that in the binary distributions, many mod_*.so's are provided with "as is" while mod_ssl.so is not. Therefore, my suggestions are: 1) mention in the README files for binary downloads, that mod_ssl needs to be obtained separately (an provide a link for the how-to-obtain-it) 2) change the file naming on http://nagoya.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/* similarly to the win32 binary on http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi to *-no_ssl.tar.gz! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
