ok
Florian Obser(flor...@openbsd.org) on 2018.03.14 08:15:35 +0100:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 01:08:33AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2018/03/11 17:52, Florian Obser wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we should just follow the 301.
> >
> > I didn't hear back from @letsencrypt_ops about why they
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 01:08:33AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2018/03/11 17:52, Florian Obser wrote:
> >
> > I think we should just follow the 301.
>
> I didn't hear back from @letsencrypt_ops about why they were
> issue 301s, but I do agree it makes sense to follow them.
update diff wi
On 2018/03/11 17:52, Florian Obser wrote:
>
> I think we should just follow the 301.
I didn't hear back from @letsencrypt_ops about why they were
issue 301s, but I do agree it makes sense to follow them.
> OK?
>
> diff --git netproc.c netproc.c
> index 26033a3fc3c..14da5a8c1a9 100644
> --- netp
I think we should just follow the 301.
OK?
diff --git netproc.c netproc.c
index 26033a3fc3c..14da5a8c1a9 100644
--- netproc.c
+++ netproc.c
@@ -180,15 +180,18 @@ nreq(struct conn *c, const char *addr)
{
struct httpget *g;
struct sourcesrc[MAX_SERVERS_DNS];
+ struct ht
Bugfix for the 301 redirect issue reported by some users.
This patch is by user picoh from github and works fine for me (tested
with -current)
see
https://github.com/kristapsdz/acme-client-portable/issues/50#issuecomment-372119303
--- netproc.c.orig Wed Feb 1 16:20:14 2017
+++ netproc.c
