"Demetrios C. Christopher" wrote:
>
> Hey guys, thanks for nothing ... this is the second reply
> to my own email :(
>
> Anyway, I contacted the site with which we were having problems
> and they went through their logs only to discover that the only
> difference between LWP https calls that were successful and those
> that failed was the return code!!!
>
Give me your URL that you are contacting, I'll see how it works
with my LWP. You might try upgrading the Crypt::SSLeay https LWP
library to the latest should you have an old one. The latest
Crypt::SSLeay supports SSLv3 and all that.
> Now think, why would the mode of the server on which the process
> is running bear an effect on the outcome of the connection miles
> away? I'm guessing there's a conflict of interest ... Stronghold
> is tapping the SSL library (I can find out which one if people are
> interested in helping, ah-hem) and when LWP is trying to form a
> 128-bit cipher it's getting some junk or errors. Go figure.
>
I feel that this problem might be that the stronghold server was
insisting on its 128 bit SSLv3, and LWP might have been going
for a SSLv2 or SSLv23 with 56bit, thus a funky 403. error, but
only time will tell! It seems to clean an error to be some king
of corruption.
> Ok guys, I did most of the investigation work, anyone out there
> who has seen this before? Is Joshua out sick or something ;)
>
Like Ged said...
--Josh
_________________________________________________________________
Joshua Chamas Chamas Enterprises Inc.
NodeWorks >> free web link monitoring Huntington Beach, CA USA
http://www.nodeworks.com 1-714-625-4051
