Re: Announce missing - in moderation?

[Daniel Ruggeri]

Yes, I sent via curl (true story, you can send email with curl) directly to the 
relay service and authenticated with my ASF credentials. I had checked in with 
Infra here at ACNA and they saw *something* that looked like my message. I'll 
check in with them again.

Thanks, folks
-- 
Daniel Ruggeri

On September 24, 2018 3:07:00 PM EDT, William A Rowe Jr  
wrote:
>I'm seeing no announce@httpd moderation request. (I am not an
>annou...@apache.org moderator.)
>
>Did you send from your @apache.org avail-id through the ASF server? It
>would
>be rejected for non-apache and for mismatched SPF records.
>
>
>
>On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:16 AM Daniel Ruggeri 
>wrote:
>
>> Hi, all;
>>I sent the announce message for 2.4.35, but haven't received it
>myself.
>> I didn't get errors sending that I am aware of. Perhaps it is in
>> moderation? If not, I can check in with infra to see if
>mail-relay.a.o ate
>> it.
>>
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Daniel Ruggeri
>>

Re: Announce missing - in moderation?

[William A Rowe Jr]

I'm seeing no announce@httpd moderation request. (I am not an
annou...@apache.org moderator.)

Did you send from your @apache.org avail-id through the ASF server? It would
be rejected for non-apache and for mismatched SPF records.



On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:16 AM Daniel Ruggeri  wrote:

> Hi, all;
>I sent the announce message for 2.4.35, but haven't received it myself.
> I didn't get errors sending that I am aware of. Perhaps it is in
> moderation? If not, I can check in with infra to see if mail-relay.a.o ate
> it.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
>

Re: Announce missing - in moderation?

[Jim Jagielski]

me no see either

> On Sep 24, 2018, at 10:22 AM, .  wrote:
> 
> Confirming that I also didn't receive the announce email.
> 
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 10:16 AM Daniel Ruggeri  > wrote:
> Hi, all;
>I sent the announce message for 2.4.35, but haven't received it myself. I 
> didn't get errors sending that I am aware of. Perhaps it is in moderation? If 
> not, I can check in with infra to see if mail-relay.a.o ate it.
> 
> Thanks
> -- 
> Daniel Ruggeri

Re: Announce missing - in moderation?

[.]

Confirming that I also didn't receive the announce email.

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 10:16 AM Daniel Ruggeri  wrote:

> Hi, all;
>I sent the announce message for 2.4.35, but haven't received it myself.
> I didn't get errors sending that I am aware of. Perhaps it is in
> moderation? If not, I can check in with infra to see if mail-relay.a.o ate
> it.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
>

Announce missing - in moderation?

[Daniel Ruggeri]

Hi, all;
   I sent the announce message for 2.4.35, but haven't received it myself. I 
didn't get errors sending that I am aware of. Perhaps it is in moderation? If 
not, I can check in with infra to see if mail-relay.a.o ate it.

Thanks
-- 
Daniel Ruggeri

Re: Minimum OpenSSL requirements for mod_md

[Stefan Eissing]

> Am 24.09.2018 um 14:58 schrieb Astrid Malo :
> 
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:42:06 +0200
> Rainer Jung  wrote:
> 
>> Should we document that requirement somehow, because our non-mod_md 
>> OpenSSL requirement is still at 0.9.8a. IMHO there's no need to "fix" 
>> the higher requirement in mod_md, because it is pretty fresh and 
>> probably there's no need to support it with ancient OpenSSL.
> 
> Yes, of course. Requirements differing from the general ones have to be
> added to the documentation. This should be no big deal. Just make it
> prominent somewhere where people read if before the installation :-)
> 
> kess

+1

Re: Minimum OpenSSL requirements for mod_md

[Astrid Malo]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:42:06 +0200
Rainer Jung  wrote:

> Should we document that requirement somehow, because our non-mod_md 
> OpenSSL requirement is still at 0.9.8a. IMHO there's no need to "fix" 
> the higher requirement in mod_md, because it is pretty fresh and 
> probably there's no need to support it with ancient OpenSSL.

Yes, of course. Requirements differing from the general ones have to be
added to the documentation. This should be no big deal. Just make it
prominent somewhere where people read if before the installation :-)

 kess

Minimum OpenSSL requirements for mod_md

[Rainer Jung]

Hi all,

it seems our relatively new module mod_md needs at last OpenSSL 1.0.0 
initial release. When building against latest 0.9.8zh I get linking 
errors due to missing symbols:


modules/md/md_crypt.c: In function 'gen_rsa':
modules/md/md_crypt.c:445:5: error: unknown type name 'EVP_PKEY_CTX'; 
did you mean 'EVP_PKEY_DSA'?

 EVP_PKEY_CTX *ctx = NULL;
 ^~~~
 EVP_PKEY_DSA
modules/md/md_crypt.c:449:11: warning: implicit declaration of function 
'EVP_PKEY_CTX_new_id'; did you mean 'EVP_PKEY_new'? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

 ctx = EVP_PKEY_CTX_new_id(EVP_PKEY_RSA, NULL);
   ^~~
   EVP_PKEY_new
modules/md/md_crypt.c:449:9: warning: assignment to 'int *' from 'int' 
makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]

 ctx = EVP_PKEY_CTX_new_id(EVP_PKEY_RSA, NULL);
 ^
modules/md/md_crypt.c:451:12: warning: implicit declaration of function 
'EVP_PKEY_keygen_init'; did you mean 'EVP_PKEY_get_attr'? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

 && EVP_PKEY_keygen_init(ctx) >= 0
^~~~
EVP_PKEY_get_attr
modules/md/md_crypt.c:452:12: warning: implicit declaration of function 
'EVP_PKEY_CTX_set_rsa_keygen_bits'; did you mean 
'EVP_CIPHER_CTX_set_key_length'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

 && EVP_PKEY_CTX_set_rsa_keygen_bits(ctx, (int)bits) >= 0
^~~~
EVP_CIPHER_CTX_set_key_length
modules/md/md_crypt.c:453:12: warning: implicit declaration of function 
'EVP_PKEY_keygen'; did you mean 'EVP_PKEY_type'? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

 && EVP_PKEY_keygen(ctx, &(*ppkey)->pkey) >= 0) {
^~~
EVP_PKEY_type
modules/md/md_crypt.c:463:9: warning: implicit declaration of function 
'EVP_PKEY_CTX_free'; did you mean 'EVP_PKEY_free'? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

 EVP_PKEY_CTX_free(ctx);
 ^
 EVP_PKEY_free
modules/md/md_crypt.c: In function 'md_cert_self_sign':
modules/md/md_crypt.c:1294:31: warning: implicit declaration of function 
'ASN1_TIME_adj'; did you mean 'ASN1_TIME_set'? 
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

 if (!X509_set_notAfter(x, ASN1_TIME_adj(NULL, time(NULL), days, 0))) {
   ^
   ASN1_TIME_set
modules/md/md_crypt.c:1294:31: warning: passing argument 2 of 
'X509_set_notAfter' makes pointer from integer without a cast 
[-Wint-conversion]

 if (!X509_set_notAfter(x, ASN1_TIME_adj(NULL, time(NULL), days, 0))) {
   ^~~~
In file included from /path/to/include/openssl/pem.h:70,
 from modules/md/md_crypt.c:28:
/path/to/include/openssl/x509.h:998:45: note: expected 'ASN1_TIME *' 
{aka 'struct asn1_string_st *'} but argument is of type 'int'

 int   X509_set_notAfter(X509 *x, ASN1_TIME *tm);
  ~~~^~

Looking at the header files coming with OpenSSL 1.0.0 it looks like 
atleast those symbols are there, so mod_md might work with it.


Should we document that requirement somehow, because our non-mod_md 
OpenSSL requirement is still at 0.9.8a. IMHO there's no need to "fix" 
the higher requirement in mod_md, because it is pretty fresh and 
probably there's no need to support it with ancient OpenSSL.


Regards,

Rainer