Message-ID: <385342FF.A13EF16F@elmar.co.il>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 08:38:55 +0200
From: Eli Marmor <marmor@elmar.co.il>
Organization: El-Mar Software Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
CC: Jim Jagielski <jim@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: OT: How to Add a Module to Apache
References: <382E6282.6E43EFC2@elmar.co.il>
 <19991114125847.B21217@engelschall.com> <3850F2D9.90AE12C1@elmar.co.il>
 <3852DF54.26947E6A@elmar.co.il>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Status: O

The message was posted by me ONLY to the mailing list of mod_ssl,
and meant only to change the distribution format of mod_ssl, and
not of Apache. Somebody else (Jim?) forwarded it to this list.

I understand that integrating crypto stuff, or even only EAPI
patches, into the standard Apache, is too controversal, and there
are other "competing" projects, such as KEAPI and the patches which
are planned for Apache 2.0, as well as competing SSL implementations
(Ben's) and the crypto limitations of U.S. (to be relaxed this week
???????).

The last thing that I want is a flaming war. So please, Jim (or
whoever forwarded this message), tell them that it is only a forward
and that I didn't have any intention to change the main source tree
of Apache and/or to post this message to new-httpd mailing list.

(although that up to this minute, thanks God, nobody started this
flaming war; But it will come, for sure!).

In addition, if the message was forwarded, it could be better to
forward the previous messages too, at least the one discussing the
patches required to insert into the patch scripts of UNIX and
Windows, in order to make them "compatible".

-- 
Eli Marmor