-1 Problematic email clients' settings that cause CRLs to be checked for digital-certificate-signed email need to be changed. It's a bit optimistic, anyway, for those settings to assume that everyone's digital email-signing certificate will be signed by a root cert whose CRL server you know...
I am pretty surprised that the reaction to someone's increasing security and doing their part against spam has been so negative. Especially when the problem appears to be with the recipients' configuration. I'm happy to discuss more off list. On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 21:21, Mike Curwen wrote: > I'll vote for this too. My client freezes for about 50 seconds when I > get to Antonio Fiol BonnÃn's emails. So I've leared to not click on > them. And yes, it's Outlook, but hey that's what we use here at work. > My client at home (Firefox/thunderbird) does not have this problem. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Neal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 11:10 AM > > To: 'Tomcat Users List' > > Subject: RE: Digitally Signing Posts > > > > > > Ha! I said the same thing a month ago and was completely ignored. :-\ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Angus Mezick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:44 AM > > To: Tomcat Users List > > Subject: RE: Digitally Signing Posts > > > > +1 > > --Angus > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: George Sexton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 8:56 AM > > > To: 'Tomcat Users List' > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE:Digitally Signing Posts > > > > > > > > > Would you either > > > > > > A) Not sign posts to the group > > > > > > Or > > > > > > B) Sign the posts with a working certificate? > > > > > > Everytime I hit one of your messages, it locks my mail client > > > up for 30 > > > seconds. > > > > > > > > > Warning: > > > The Certificate Revocation List needed to verify the signing > > > certificate > > > is either unavailable or it has expired. > > > Signed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] using RSA/SHA1 at 12:48:09 AM > > > 3/16/2004. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Antonio Fiol BonnÃn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:48 AM > > > To: Tomcat Users List > > > Subject: Re: Load balancing for uptime > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > To keep it up, you will need to setup session replication (See your > > > Cluster element in server.xml), either in-memory or JDBC. Both are > > > supposed to work. > > > > > > However, that implies several things: > > > - Your session must contain Seralizable objects only. > > > - Your performance will be worse (how much worse highly > > > depends on the > > > size of the objects in your session) > > > > > > And... nobody guarantees that your memory leak (if there is > > > one) is not > > > related to the information stored in sessions. > > > > > > Depending on your load balancer, there is another option > > > (IMHO, better > > > for your case). > > > > > > There are some load balancers that allow you to turn a server > > > down while > > > > > > keeping it up for currently established sessions, for a > > certain time. > > > That allows you NOT to use session replication, thus not > > > replicating any > > > > > > instability related to sessions. > > > > > > Oh, and last, if you need a good consultant for fixing, > > optimizing or > > > redesigning your application, you just found one ;-) > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > > > > Antonio Fiol > > > > > > > > > Derek Clarkson wrote: > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > We have an app written in a mix of JSP, servlets and struts > > > across 3 > > > >instances of apache, tomcat and an RMI server. To say that > > > it's a pile > > > of > > > >smelly stuff is an understatement, however it works > > (mostly) and our > > > >customers depend on it. At least once a week though it > > > crashes with out > > > of > > > >memory errors. > > > > > > > >Until we can redesign and fix it we are looking for a way > > to keep it > > > up. One > > > >suggest has been to have two servers running with a common > > DB server, > > > and to > > > >use a load balancer to allow us to keep one server up > > whilst we boot > > > the > > > >other, then vice versa. Thus on a daily basis we can reboot both > > > machines > > > >whilst mainting a working system for the users. > > > > > > > >Can anyone see any problems with this ? I'm concerned about issue > > > realed to > > > >session management, etc. > > > > > > > >Ciao > > > >Derek > > > > > > > > > > > >_____________________________________________________________ > > > _________ > > > >This email, including attachments, is intended only for > > the addressee > > > >and may be confidential, privileged and subject to > > copyright. If you > > > >have received this email in error, please advise the sender > > > and delete > > > >it. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, > > > you must not > > > >use, copy or disclose its content to anyone. You must not copy or > > > >communicate to others content that is confidential or subject to > > > >copyright, unless you have the consent of the content owner. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
