On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2015, at 2:46 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>
> >> + ylavic: Should we really change the (implicit) default in 2.4.x at
> >> + this stage (and potentially break existing
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 28. September 2015 19:00
> An: Apache HTTP Server Development List <dev@httpd.apache.org>
> Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1705618 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:33 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> By which we mean TTLv1.0/SSLv3 because there is so little technical
> difference between them.
AORN {
I think there is enough difference to disable one by default and not
the other. The final straw for SSLv3 was
> An: Apache HTTP Server Development List <dev@httpd.apache.org>
> > Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1705618 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:33 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-
> > clan.net> wrote:
> > > By which we mean TTLv1.0/
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 4:50 AM, wrote:
> Author: ylavic
> Date: Mon Sep 28 08:50:46 2015
> New Revision: 1705618
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1705618=rev
> Log:
> Compatibility issue?
>
> Modified:
> httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
>
> Modified:
On 28 Sep 2015, at 2:46 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
>> + ylavic: Should we really change the (implicit) default in 2.4.x at
>> + this stage (and potentially break existing configuratios w/o
>> + SSLProtocol which used to work with SSLv3 only capable
>>