Hello!
I write my own X509_LOOKUP_database method for X509_STORE
I found, that method X509_LOOKUP_new() is called from
X509_STORE_add_lookup(),
methods X509_LOOKUP_shutdown() and X509_LOOKUP_free() are called from
X509_STORE_free() and so on, but I don't found where is
X509_LOOKUP_init()
On the other hand! Does the library actually *compile* under
MS-DOS/WIN16? Does *anybody* actually use it?
I think Steve still builds Win16 versions.
No I don't. Win16 is too painful but when dropping support was mentioned
a while ago someone mentioned various applications that used
The return value of Malloc() is almost always cast to unsigned char*
or whatever type is used. Why?
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL
smime.p7m
Hi,
I like the idea, can you include a Win32 platform
in the head file.
Zhigang
--- Chris Jalbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/21/1999 1:49 AM, Goetz Babin-Ebell enlightened
me with the following:
Perhaps we should clear sizes of data types.
Perhaps something like:
typedef char
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, Andy Polyakov wrote:
On the other hand! Does the library actually *compile* under
MS-DOS/WIN16? Does *anybody* actually use it?
I think Steve still builds Win16 versions.
No I don't. Win16 is too painful but when dropping support was mentioned
a while ago
Who wants to write a simple S/MIME tool, able to decrypt, verify, sign,
crypt any mail, so I can use it as a PINE filter? ;-)
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Andrea e Luca Giacobazzi wrote:
[NON-Text Body part not included]
--
Erwann ABALEA
System and Development Engineer - Certplus SA
[EMAIL
Paul Cronholm wrote:
Further i wonder if there is a way to generate certificates that never
expires (infinite days valid),
and if not what is the max?
The time in certificates is represented by either a UTCTime or
GeneralizedTime structure. You aren't allowed to omit the expiry date
and
Ulf Möller wrote:
The return value of Malloc() is almost always cast to unsigned char*
or whatever type is used. Why?
Because it used to return char *. Blow them away as you find them.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two
I think encryption based on discrete logarithm problem like DH does, I
should try ElGamal?
Do anybody know where to get C-sources for ElGamal?
You can easily implement ElGamal encryption based on OpenSSL.
If you need an example, look at my implementation in
Anonymous writes:
I am using SSLeay 0.6.6b targeting 8086 MS-DOS 5.0. The development platform
is TurboC running in Linux/DOSEMU.
Amazing.
I would like to upgrade to the latest
OpenSSL but I thought that 16-bit support had already been dropped.
16-bit support has not been dropped, but it
At 00:26 22.04.99 -0700, you wrote:
Hi,
Hallo,
I like the idea, can you include a Win32 platform
in the head file.
Whatever we do, we should decide to do it quickly.
There seem to be hiding a lot of size dependencies in the code...
The file has some disadvantages:
1. There are no processor
Anonymous wrote:
Has anybody intentionally removed 16-bit support from OpenSSL? When?
It hasn't been intentionally removed, but none of the developers support
it. I see no reason that patches to fix it shouldn't be accepted.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather
Who wants to write a simple S/MIME tool, able to decrypt, verify, sign,
crypt any mail, so I can use it as a PINE filter? ;-)
You can use the pkcs#7 patch I sent last week to do
the sign/verify bit. Then you just need to fix it up
to encrpyt/decrypt and you'll be all set... :)
TT
An issue that still is open as of yet is what to do with the exported
header files. Currently, /usr/local/ssl/include/foo.h will
#include "bar.h"
which it should't --
#include bar.h
is better because it cannot conflict with application files.
However, I'd prefer moving everything to
Bodo Moeller wrote:
An issue that still is open as of yet is what to do with the exported
header files. Currently, /usr/local/ssl/include/foo.h will
#include "bar.h"
which it should't --
#include bar.h
is better because it cannot conflict with application files.
However, I'd prefer
Andy Polyakov wrote:
[..]
examined SHA code on Alpha today (actually for the first time to be
honest, because I got really curious how the hell does it work when it's
not supposed to:-) and figured out that it worked for sole reason that
L_ENDIAN was not defined on Alpha. Latter means that
People get confused by the make links output. So I think Configure
should print out something reassuring after make links is done.
I also wonder if it wouldn't be enough to create the links only if
the include directory is empty.
I would also prefer to have a "links" dependency in the Makefile
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
[...]
Moving everything to /usr/local/ssl/include/openssl doesn't make much sense
though.
- That will leave /usr/local/ssl/include empty except for the subdir.
True, but that shouldn't hurt anyone. It's just another inode.
-
it would also be nice (and important) to have an explicit list of
supported platforms/compilers on the web, preferably in
http://www.openssl.org/about/ section.
Here's a start. More test results are welcome.
Successful:
==
Digital Unix V4.0Ealpha EV5.6 gcc 2.8.1 1999-04-22
Bodo Moeller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 07:30:15PM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
[...]
- That will leave /usr/local/ssl/include empty except for the subdir.
True, but that shouldn't hurt anyone. It's just another inode.
No, it doesn't hurt. It's just silly.
-
ulf For BSD/386, FreeBSD and NetBSD there are two entries each:
ulf
ulf FreeBSD:*:*:*486*)
ulf echo "i486-whatever-freebsd"; exit 0
ulf ;;
ulf
ulf FreeBSD:*)
ulf echo "${MACHINE}-whatever-freebsd"; exit 0
ulf ;;
ulf
ulf It seems that uname -m always
Uhmmm. I wonder when I will learn not to open my mouth when I'm newly
awake... Please ignore what I just said...
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-161 43 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53
23 matches
Mail list logo
