On Saturday 04 February 2017 15:51:02 Andreas Bartelt wrote:
> On 02/04/17 05:26, Joel Sing wrote:
> > On Wednesday 01 February 2017 15:41:29 Andreas Bartelt wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> after reading the LibreSSL accouncement from today, I assumed that
> >> specifying ecdhe "auto" in /etc/httpd.c
Klemens Nanni writes:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 12:27:19AM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>>The colons used in IPv6 addresses conflicts with the proxy port
>>specification. Do the right thing for -x ::1:8080, [::1] and
>>[::1]:8080.
> With this patch '-x ::1' is still broken. I think we
On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 12:27:19AM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
The colons used in IPv6 addresses conflicts with the proxy port
specification. Do the right thing for -x ::1:8080, [::1] and
[::1]:8080.
With this patch '-x ::1' is still broken. I think we should either
require/enforce s
ok beck@
On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 12:27:19AM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
> The colons used in IPv6 addresses conflicts with the proxy port
> specification. Do the right thing for -x ::1:8080, [::1] and
> [::1]:8080.
>
> ok?
>
>
> Index: netcat.c
> =
The colons used in IPv6 addresses conflicts with the proxy port
specification. Do the right thing for -x ::1:8080, [::1] and
[::1]:8080.
ok?
Index: netcat.c
===
RCS file: /d/cvs/src/usr.bin/nc/netcat.c,v
retrieving revision 1.171
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 01:22:40PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> >
> > It's not specified what AF_UNIX 'raw' sockets mean anyway. FreeBSD and
>
> i'll repeat my "clueless networker" moniker, but point out that ip(4)
> has a section on "Raw IP Socket
Philip Guenther writes:
> It's not specified what AF_UNIX 'raw' sockets mean anyway. FreeBSD and
> NetBSD have removed this entry in unixsw[], so it's clear it's not being
> used in the ecosystem, so let's kill it too.
>
> ok?
ok jca@
--
jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDC
On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 01:22:40PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
>
> It's not specified what AF_UNIX 'raw' sockets mean anyway. FreeBSD and
i'll repeat my "clueless networker" moniker, but point out that ip(4)
has a section on "Raw IP Sockets".
jmc
> NetBSD have removed this entry in unixsw[],
It's not specified what AF_UNIX 'raw' sockets mean anyway. FreeBSD and
NetBSD have removed this entry in unixsw[], so it's clear it's not being
used in the ecosystem, so let's kill it too.
ok?
Philip Guenther
Index: kern/uipc_proto.c
===
On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 10:12:17PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> Jason McIntyre writes:
>
> > On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 06:14:35PM +, Andrew Grillet wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> "a name that can be looked up in the DNS"
> >>
> >> Please can this phrase be used in the man page -it is a
On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 01:52:14PM -0700, Bob Beck wrote:
>
> Presented without further comment.
>
> ok?
>
Or maybe this is more appropriate:
Index: calendar.history
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/calendar/calendars/calendar.hi
On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 12:59:53PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Bob Beck wrote:
> >
> > Presented without further comment.
> >
> > ok?
>
> NACK. Obsolete 32bit time_t OSes can track their own damn holidays.
But how will I remember to be appropriately devotion
Jason McIntyre writes:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 06:14:35PM +, Andrew Grillet wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> "a name that can be looked up in the DNS"
>>
>> Please can this phrase be used in the man page -it is a really good
>> explanation.
>>
>
> ...but an awkward phrasing, especially if it's to be r
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Bob Beck wrote:
>
> Presented without further comment.
>
> ok?
NACK. Obsolete 32bit time_t OSes can track their own damn holidays.
Presented without further comment.
ok?
Index: calendar.usholiday
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/calendar/calendars/calendar.usholiday,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.9 calendar.usholiday
--- calendar.usholiday 19 J
On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 06:14:35PM +, Andrew Grillet wrote:
> Hi
>
> "a name that can be looked up in the DNS"
>
> Please can this phrase be used in the man page -it is a really good
> explanation.
>
...but an awkward phrasing, especially if it's to be repeated in many
places. it may be sim
Hi
"a name that can be looked up in the DNS"
Please can this phrase be used in the man page -it is a really good
explanation.
On 4 February 2017 at 15:34, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas
wrote:
> Theo Buehler writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:30:15PM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> >> The TOK_
thread moved from misc@ to tech@ due to a diff.
(see http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs&m=148612339714423 for previous
messages)
On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 09:47:04PM +0800, Tinker wrote:
> Hi Sebastien and Philip,
>
> Thanks for your clarifications. It was interesting to learn to know that you
> sho
On 02/04/17 17:15, Bob Beck wrote:
try connecting with openbsd nc rather than s-client
with ecdhe "auto" as well as ecdhe "secp384r1" in /etc/httpd.conf, I can
successfully negotiate a TLS cipher suite via nc -vvv -c 443
However, nc doesn't give any output with regard to the negotiated cur
try connecting with openbsd nc rather than s-client
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 09:13 Bob Beck wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 07:51 Andreas Bartelt wrote:
>
> On 02/04/17 05:26, Joel Sing wrote:
> > On Wednesday 01 February 2017 15:41:29 Andreas Bartelt wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> after reading
Theo Buehler writes:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 09:30:15PM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
>> The TOK_NEXT_SERVER case in parse_statement() calls
>> parse_ip_addr_or_hostname(),
>> so I think the next-server option wants a host name, not a domain name:
>
> Any takers? I previously suggested 'host name
On 02/04/17 05:26, Joel Sing wrote:
On Wednesday 01 February 2017 15:41:29 Andreas Bartelt wrote:
Hello,
after reading the LibreSSL accouncement from today, I assumed that
specifying ecdhe "auto" in /etc/httpd.conf would enable X25519, P-256
and P-384 on current.
This is correct.
I've notic
22 matches
Mail list logo