httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Issac Goldstand <mar...@beamartyr.net>
Subject Re: 2.2.4 windows binary w/ssl?
Date Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:36:29 GMT


Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/10/07, *William A. Rowe, Jr.* <wrowe@rowe-clan.net
> <mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
>     > Do note that not all users that will chose the SSL package will
>     know how
>     > to correctly fill in the fields.
> 
>     s/not all/a small minority of/
> 
> 
> Do not underestimate user stupidity ;) ok maybe the number won't be
> overly to large but I can sure see the post flooding in on the Apache BB's!

True, but Bill has a point.  If they can't fill in "Domain Name",
"Company Name (Optional)", "City", "State", "Country", then SSL install
is the least of their problems ;-)

Seriously, it's just an issue of us naming the fields well.

[snip]

>     ./configure; make; make install
> 
>     We don't deposit a certificate today for Unix.  After considering
>     this a bit
>     more, I agree with jerenkrantz.
> 
> 
> True... if you don't enable mod_ssl by default and add a note in the
> conf file It should be rather safe to not include a cert. Pointing them
> to a docs or wiki guide/how to would be a good idea.

I'd agree if mod_ssl is disabled by default, but if it is, why are they
downloading the mod_ssl-enabled installer?

The "stupid user" issue you mention is a great answer here, but not good
enough to disabled mod_ssl by default if there are seperate SSL and
non-SSL installers.

  Issac

Mime
View raw message