> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Juli 2004 22:16 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: [Bug 3573] [review]New regression test for SSL in spamc/spamd > > > http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3573 > > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-07-08 > 13:15 ------- > Subject: Re: [review]New regression test for SSL in spamc/spamd > > On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 12:58:31PM -0700, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > yeah -- I agree with Sidney too. As long as that cert is only used > > for "make test", and never for any real-world use, it's fine IMO -- > > because the alternatives are waay too hairy. > > Besides the fact I just don't like the idea of including a key and > cert, even just for testing... (and I think regardless it should be a > Makefile question anyway -- we do it for network, we do it for razor, > so we should do it for ssl) Do we know if software SSL/certs/etc is > allowed/legal in all countries? > > I know some countries have issues between hardware encryption and > software encryption (India for instance, IIRC, has heavy restrictions > for HW encryption but allows some level of SW encryption). The cert is > for authentication, I know, but ... >
i'm sorry, i know i didnt get the whole discussion, but isnt it pretty normal that one has a makefile target which generates a test certificate with the `hostname` of the machine the compile runs on, and uses that for some test issues? regards, johannes > > > > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. >
