Subject: Re:

From: "Ian Newlands" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:53:28 +0800

Dave

Thank you for your reply, it was most enlightening and yes I will re-assess 
my future as a human being.  Hopefully that statement somehow makes you feel 
better about yourself.

Now with all that said and done, let's get back to my actual question, 
that's what this discussion list is about is it not? :)

My question quite clearly stated that I was attempting IP based hosting for 
my SSL based virtual host.  I am assuming that you quite clearly did not 
actually read my email prior to your public abuse of my standing as a human 
being.

Please read the following quote from my initial email very carefully.

>My SSL host is currently working with the following:
>    <VirtualHost _default_:443>
>
>However I want to change this to the IP based hosting for this  host, 
>allowing me to then add more SSL based virtual hosts on this  setup, so I 
>tried changing this to the following:
>
>    <VirtualHost 203.xxx.xxx.xxx:443>

I don't know whether you are going through an extremely bad period in your 
life, or you're just a grumpy old man, but try and not take this out on 
others.  I'm sure the administrators of this mailing list did not intend 
this medium to be used for public abuse.

Regards,

Ian Newlands

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Paris" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ian Newlands" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: Re:

>Ian,
>
>http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF- 
>8&safe=off&q=SSL+%22name+based+virtual+hosts%22&spell=1
>
>That's a Google query for:   SSL "name based virtual hosts"
>
>The very first hit is:   
>http://httpd.apache.org/docs/vhosts/name-based.html
>
>The summary text presented by Google reads:
>"Name-based Virtual Hosts
>   ... Name-based virtual hosting cannot be used with SSL secure servers  
>because
>   of the nature of the SSL protocol. ... Using Name-based Virtual Hosts.  
>..."
>
>If you don't like that one, there are 1,890 other matches .. several of  
>the first 20 clearly say in the summary text presented by Google that  you 
>can't do name-based virtual hosts with SSL.
>
>Please note I have not to date, nor am I now, calling you [insert  
>derogatory/deriding term or phrase here], nor am I saying you're a  
>worthless human.  I'm simply pointing out the obvious fact that the way  
>your mind seems to go about solving problems and researching does not  mesh 
>well with the tasks you're trying to accomplish.  You claim to  have spent 
>two MONTHS trying to find what I found in under 10 SECONDS.   That doesn't 
>make me one bit of a better person than you... it just  says that my mind 
>works in a way that is different from yours.  I'd  wager there are certain 
>tasks you accomplish quite easily that would  take me some effort.  It's 
>the way us humans seem to be designed.
>
>Every once in awhile, it's a good thing to look at who we are and what  
>we're good at and then review what we've chosen to do in life.  Doing a  
>job that meshes well with how you think can be all the difference  between 
>looking forward to an rewarding day at the office and a bruised  forehead 
>from repeatedly smashing your head against a wall in  self-frustration.  [ 
>of course, I'm omitting the forehead bruising  caused by external 
>influences like PHBs ;-) ]   As for the tone of your  note .. life's tough, 
>grab a helmet.
>
>Kind Regards,
>-dsp

_________________________________________________________________
ninemsn Extra Storage is now available. Get five times more storage - 10MB 
in your Hotmail account. Click here  http://join.msn.com/

______________________________________________________________________
Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl)                   www.modssl.org
User Support Mailing List                      [email-masked]
Automated List Manager                            [email-masked]

---

From: Dave Paris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:37:24 -0400

On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 21:53 US/Eastern, Ian Newlands wrote:

> Dave
>
> Thank you for your reply, it was most enlightening and yes I will 
> re-assess my future as a human being.  Hopefully that statement 
> somehow makes you feel better about yourself.
> [...]

Get over yourself.  I went out of my way to make it COMPLETELY CLEAR 
that I was not intending my comments as any sort of insult or other 
attack on your intelligence or worth as a person.

-dsp

[once again, I'm reminded why I stopped contributing to listservs a few 
years back]

---

From: "Arthur Chan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:51:29 +0800

Hiya.
How's it going Dave ?
Remember we were talking about ATM packet and payload factor ?
U mentioned something like payload to o/head @ 48/5. Were u talking about
S.E.T. ?
Am I looking at the right thing for very *high*  volumn, short duration,
24x7 operations ?
There's actually a small box inside those atms to capture the tx's when the
db of the acquirer bank is down and depending on the card, issuance is
almost guaranteed and the risk carried by the issuer bank.
I don't know what they are now for IBM atms, but last few years there is a
slow trend towards MS, scary thought.
I think (meaning I don't know fore sure) SET is the "smart card" version
with a chip. Relatively common in Hong Kong, don't know about USA.
Wish theres a vpn here.

---

From: Dave Paris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 06:28:08 -0400

I was referring to Asynchronous Transfer Mode transport-layer protocol 
- typically used on WAN and long-haul links.  Really doesn't have 
anything to do with SET or other applications.

-d