On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 04:52:39PM +0100, Gaja Sophie Peters wrote:
> (I tried sending this email about a week ago, but apparently
> unsuccessfull, so I am retrying with a different sender-address now.)
>
>
> Am 06.01.2018 um 03:22 schrieb Benjamin Kaduk:
>
> > The OpenAFS Guardians are happy
(I tried sending this email about a week ago, but apparently
unsuccessfull, so I am retrying with a different sender-address now.)
Am 06.01.2018 um 03:22 schrieb Benjamin Kaduk:
The OpenAFS Guardians are happy to announce the availability of the fourth
prerelease candidate of OpenAFS 1.8.0.
It's fixed.
Ben
On 01/17/2018 05:18 AM, Harald Barth wrote:
I wrote
I actually don't know how high a kvno can be but up to 32767 (2^15-1)
"feels" safe.
That was probably WRONG as Sergio pointed out to me.
Sergio wrote:
It doesn't feel all that safe to me. True, RFC 4120 specifies the
I wrote
>>I actually don't know how high a kvno can be but up to 32767 (2^15-1)
>>"feels" safe.
That was probably WRONG as Sergio pointed out to me.
Sergio wrote:
> It doesn't feel all that safe to me. True, RFC 4120 specifies the kvno as
> UInt32, but
