[Disclaimer: I am being terse. It is late here. Or early, as it were.]
On 06/16/2014 01:44 AM, André Malo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
>> Hi there, dev@ people (and docs@ cc'ed),
>>
>> For some time now, a lot of us from the documentation team have been
>> pondering on making our sit
Hi,
* Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Hi there, dev@ people (and docs@ cc'ed),
>
> For some time now, a lot of us from the documentation team have been
> pondering on making our site, well, not so 1990s looking and unappealing.
+1 at the point.
>
> We've had some input from various people over time, and
+1,000,000
On 06/15/2014 04:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Hi there, dev@ people (and docs@ cc'ed),
>
> For some time now, a lot of us from the documentation team have been
> pondering on making our site, well, not so 1990s looking and unappealing.
>
> We've had some input from various people over
Hi there, dev@ people (and docs@ cc'ed),
For some time now, a lot of us from the documentation team have been
pondering on making our site, well, not so 1990s looking and unappealing.
We've had some input from various people over time, and together with my
own thoughts, I've come up with a new co
On 14.06.2014 12:53, Rainer Jung wrote:
> SSL_CTX_set_timeout() seems to work pretty well.
Indeed. I missed the fact that after the ticket has been decrypted/processed,
there's a timeout check in ssl_sess.c:ssl_get_prev_session(), based on the
SSL_SESSION's "time" value, which is the timestamp of