> CAcert.org is not a recognized CA by any major browser, so at the end of
> the day, it's no more secure than signing your own certificates.
Yes, the point is that they may be in the future.
> If you do, savannah does not need an MX. Please have it verified to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can't. I'm offered the following choice:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe you can, as a quick work-around, have the MXes set to mx10&al
for savannah.gnu.org (as Jim did for cvs.savannah.gnu.org).
If I'm not mistaken [EMAIL PROTECTED] should then receive
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do you think there is any issue with adding MXes to Savannah? We may
need this in the future, for example when Savane implements a mail
interface for the trackers.
> If you'd like one signed by a CA that is recognized by major browsers,
> let me know. We can have one generated for you.
(2 actually: gnu.org & nongnu.org)
Do you mean buying additional certificates to entrust.net? Or
something else?
Thanks,
--
Sylvain
