* From: Reco
* Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:57:19 +0300
> ... NSS is not the best TLS implementation.
OK! An assertion from an authority. Probably true but I'd want
to corroborate before restating under oath. =8~))
> There's some hope for dillo depending on if it uses openssl or gn
Hi.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 08:23:06AM -0700, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> * From: Reco
> * Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:57:19 +0300
> > ... NSS is not the best TLS implementation. There's some hope for
> > dillo depending on if it uses openssl or gnutls.
>
> How do you evaluate thes
* From: Reco
* Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:57:19 +0300
> ... NSS is not the best TLS implementation. There's some hope for
> dillo depending on if it uses openssl or gnutls.
How do you evaluate these? Published review? Study of sources?
> Have you meant "Oberon sends HTTP request th
On Tue 13 Aug 2019 at 18:55:15 (-0700), pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> From: David Wright
> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:40:04 -0500
> > You read postings on the web with a browser. When you want to reply,
> > you open a composition window and paste in the To/Cc/Subject head
Sorry for the late reply.
From: David Wright
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:40:04 -0500
> You read postings on the web with a browser. When you want to reply,
> you open a composition window and paste in the To/Cc/Subject headers
> from the web page.
Correct.
> But the point is that Message-ID:s, In-
On Mon 29 Jul 2019 at 09:22:24 (+0300), Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Du, 28 iul 19, 19:40:04, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > The link itself is a URL as usual. For the message I'm replying to
> > now, the Message-ID is and the
> > corresponding link³ on the web page (under the magnifier) is
> > https:
On Du, 28 iul 19, 19:40:04, David Wright wrote:
>
> The link itself is a URL as usual. For the message I'm replying to
> now, the Message-ID is and the
> corresponding link³ on the web page (under the magnifier) is
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/E1hrlrN-0002IM-Cf@joule.invalid
[...]
>
On Sun 28 Jul 2019 at 19:57:19 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 09:17:21AM -0700, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> > The In-reply-to and References above should be right except that there
> > is no magnifying glass link. This is email. Not HTML.
>
> It may sound boring, but there's no "
On Sun 28 Jul 2019 at 09:17:21 (-0700), pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> Appears that the less-than and greater-than signs were replaced with
> the null character. I'm not sure why but will try to prevent henceforth.
>
> The In-reply-to and References above should be right except that there
> is no m
Hi.
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 09:17:21AM -0700, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> The In-reply-to and References above should be right except that there
> is no magnifying glass link. This is email. Not HTML.
It may sound boring, but there's no "In-reply-to". There's "In-Reply-To".
Yes, case ma
Appears that the less-than and greater-than signs were replaced with
the null character. I'm not sure why but will try to prevent henceforth.
The In-reply-to and References above should be right except that there
is no magnifying glass link. This is email. Not HTML.
* From: Reco
*
11 matches
Mail list logo
