More about my SSL certificate problem
Someone, I don't remember whether it was Alex or Urban, asked me to check on my private keyfile to see if it began with "Begin RSA private key". I reported that it does not. Now here's where things get strange: When I ran the command:
$ openssl req -nodes -newkey rsa:2048 -sha1 -keyout myserver.key -out server.csr
on an old Ubuntu system, `myserver.key' does begin with "Begin RSA private key". But when I run that same command on a Fedora 20 system, the word "RSA" isn't there. Could this have anything to do with my 0906D06C error?
If I could remove this message from this list, I would! I just figured out what my problem was, and it's something I thought *FOR SURE* I had fixed. I've looked at this thing so many times, I fell into the trap of not seeing the forest for the trees. I had inadvertently omitted the '<' before the first certificate definition. I guess there really is something to the technique of walking away from a problem for a while--in this case, overnight--and then coming tack to it and seeing it as if for the first time. I am able to successfully connect via Telnet and will carry on with my testing and integration with Postfix. Thanks to all for their help.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 07:38:26AM -0400, Steve Matzura wrote:
If I could remove this message from this list, I would! I just figured out what my problem was, and it's something I thought *FOR SURE* I had fixed. I've looked at this thing so many times, I fell into the trap of not seeing the forest for the trees. I had inadvertently omitted the '<' before the first certificate definition. I guess there really is something to the technique of walking away from a problem for a while--in this case, overnight--and then coming tack to it and seeing it as if for the first time. I am able to successfully connect via Telnet and will carry on with my testing and integration with Postfix. Thanks to all for their help.
Suspense..
What was it (for future reference)?
B
I wrote that. A missing `<' in front of the path to the main certificate file.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:44:39 +0200, you wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 07:38:26AM -0400, Steve Matzura wrote:
If I could remove this message from this list, I would! I just figured out what my problem was, and it's something I thought *FOR SURE* I had fixed. I've looked at this thing so many times, I fell into the trap of not seeing the forest for the trees. I had inadvertently omitted the '<' before the first certificate definition. I guess there really is something to the technique of walking away from a problem for a while--in this case, overnight--and then coming tack to it and seeing it as if for the first time. I am able to successfully connect via Telnet and will carry on with my testing and integration with Postfix. Thanks to all for their help.
Suspense..
What was it (for future reference)?
B
Am Montag, den 15.06.2015, 07:38 -0400 schrieb Steve Matzura:
If I could remove this message from this list, I would! I just figured out what my problem was, and it's something I thought *FOR SURE* I had fixed. I've looked at this thing so many times, I fell into the trap of not seeing the forest for the trees. I had inadvertently omitted the '<' before the first certificate definition. I guess there really is something to the technique of walking away from a problem for a while--in this case, overnight--and then coming tack to it and seeing it as if for the first time. I am able to successfully connect via Telnet and will carry on with my testing and integration with Postfix. Thanks to all for their help.
No need to. I'ts just another addition addition to a "knowledge" base, which might be helpful for someone else sometimes else.
Congrats for your problem being solved and thanks for sharing it for further references.
Regards, -M
What is the reasoning behind that `<' anyway? It just appears so odd that a path should have that at its front.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:20:25 +0200, you wrote:
Am Montag, den 15.06.2015, 07:38 -0400 schrieb Steve Matzura:
If I could remove this message from this list, I would! I just figured out what my problem was, and it's something I thought *FOR SURE* I had fixed. I've looked at this thing so many times, I fell into the trap of not seeing the forest for the trees. I had inadvertently omitted the '<' before the first certificate definition. I guess there really is something to the technique of walking away from a problem for a while--in this case, overnight--and then coming tack to it and seeing it as if for the first time. I am able to successfully connect via Telnet and will carry on with my testing and integration with Postfix. Thanks to all for their help.
No need to. I'ts just another addition addition to a "knowledge" base, which might be helpful for someone else sometimes else.
Congrats for your problem being solved and thanks for sharing it for further references.
Regards, -M
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:32:39AM -0400, Steve Matzura wrote:
What is the reasoning behind that `<' anyway? It just appears so odd that a path should have that at its front.
I would guess:
- make it clearer it's a file and not a string
- follow similar syntax as input redirection in sh/perl/..
B
Am Montag, den 15.06.2015, 15:36 +0200 schrieb B:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:32:39AM -0400, Steve Matzura wrote:
What is the reasoning behind that `<' anyway? It just appears so odd that a path should have that at its front.
I would guess:
- make it clearer it's a file and not a string
- follow similar syntax as input redirection in sh/perl/..
B
I think it's just to make the code of the config parser more simple. So these 2 variables don't need special handling, because the most users want to directly specify a file in there. Where all other stuff in the config doestn't by default specify a file.
participants (4)
-
admin
-
B
-
Felix Zielcke
-
Steve Matzura