* Thom May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fix to 2.1 and then proposing it for backport to a totally different
> codebase somewhat blows my mind.
> IMO the two should happen more or less in parallel...
If (and only if) you have three +1 for the 1.3 patch (i.e. just one more),
then you can do it tha
* Andr? Malo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> * Thom May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Thom May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> > > Hey guys,
> > > just wondering why we use system(copy...)/system(cp...) in htdigest in
> > > 1.3, when the netware option seems to be more secure?
> > > The patch att
+1
On Mar 2, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Thom May wrote:
* Thom May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
Hey guys,
just wondering why we use system(copy...)/system(cp...) in htdigest
in 1.3,
when the netware option seems to be more secure?
The patch attached just rips out the ifdef and uses the netware code
globa
* Thom May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Thom May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> > Hey guys,
> > just wondering why we use system(copy...)/system(cp...) in htdigest in
> > 1.3, when the netware option seems to be more secure?
> > The patch attached just rips out the ifdef and uses the netware code
* Thom May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> Hey guys,
> just wondering why we use system(copy...)/system(cp...) in htdigest in 1.3,
> when the netware option seems to be more secure?
> The patch attached just rips out the ifdef and uses the netware code
> globally.
No complaints? Suggestions?
I'll co
Hey guys,
just wondering why we use system(copy...)/system(cp...) in htdigest in 1.3,
when the netware option seems to be more secure?
The patch attached just rips out the ifdef and uses the netware code
globally.
-Thom
Index: htdigest.c
