Re: sslio as a STARTTLS wrapper
Scott Gifford <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.misc.pape.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Charlie Brady <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Scott Gifford wrote: > >> Charlie Brady <[email protected]> writes: >> >> [...] >> >> > It's my impression that SIGCONT is the only signal we can send >> > across uid boundaries (presuming that both smtpd and sslio have >> > changed uid), and then only if the processes are in the same session >> > (as I think they would be here). I can't think of how we'd send two >> > different messages ("take over", "die") with that one signal. >> >> Ah, you're right, a quick test confirms that. Using SIGCONT seems >> quite kludgey, though I can't think of any other reason than >> aesthetics not to use it. Well, maybe portability. > > What about the reason I've given Do any protocols actually provide a way to turn off encryption once it's on? If so, does anybody actually use it? Regardless, I tried coding something up using SIGCONT last night, and it didn't work outside of a simple example. kill returned ESRCH, which doesn't really make any sense, and maybe is an early demonstration that this wouldn't be portable. ----ScottG.