Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:16:32 +0000
On Wednesday 18 October 2000 22:59, Alex Zepeda wrote :
>On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 07:15:33PM +0000, David Faure wrote:
>> Yup, but I mentionned the fact that I could validate all of if EXCEPT
>> the kio_http part. First the change is huge, and second, I don't know =
>> in that area.
>> Now that this pops up, it seems obvious that this should NOT have been
>> removed, though.
>Without actually looking at the code again.. it appears as if HAVE_SSL a=
>DO_SSL mean the same thing, right? =20
DO_SSL only defined in kio_https, HAVE_SSL defined in both if you have ss=
>If not, then your patch is incorrect IMO, as it reports that it supports=
(hey it rhymes?)=20
>HTTPS even if it's not using the SSL equipped slave.
That's in fact the _goal_ of this change, as suggested George on kfm-deve=
The _browser_ supports SSL, even if we're currently in a non-SSL connecti=
This might be used by some servers to redirect us to the SSL web pages.
David FAURE, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today
See http://www.kde.org/kde1-and-kde2.html for how to set up KDE 2