Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Question about OS X ssl

2006-12-04 Thread Yvo van Doorn
I saw I was off by a version the moment AFTER i hit the "Send" button. All I had to say at that point was: "Foot in mouth" At least it was much newer then 2.0.52 :-) (tries to play it off, ever so smoothly). On 12/3/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 04/12/06, Yvo van Doorn <[EMAIL

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Question about OS X ssl

2006-12-04 Thread Tom Cooper
Yvo van Doorn wrote: Try adding this line: AcceptMutex flock Perfect! Furthermore, it might be a good idea to use the latest version of apache, 2.0.58, as opposed to 2.0.52. Unless you have a module that is third party and you know that doesn't work with the latest version, you truly have n

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Question about OS X ssl

2006-12-03 Thread Yvo van Doorn
Try adding this line: AcceptMutex flock Furthermore, it might be a good idea to use the latest version of apache, 2.0.58, as opposed to 2.0.52. Unless you have a module that is third party and you know that doesn't work with the latest version, you truly have no excuse not to use it :-). On 12/3

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Question about OS X ssl

2006-12-03 Thread Tom Cooper
I've been poking around with ssl on OS X Tiger (Apache2, not the 1.3 version bundled with Tiger) and am stumped! As best I can tell, the problem I have has already been solved by someone about 2 years ago (found in this posting) http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-users/200412.mbox/