I've just noticed that it has also sorted another Option, which are selected as radio buttons.  Again, this is a
list which has a natural - again, in this case, chronological - order.

Because of this, I'm going to have to turn off this feature as it is on my system.  I hope something can be sorted
on this.


> (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> 
> I like this new feature, BUT
> 
> I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> 
> System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> this is made up)
> 
> Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> 
> where the natural order here is chronological.
> 
> Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> 
> Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> 
> which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to

Sort Attribute Options Status = 1

as you suggested.

> (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> 
> I like this new feature, BUT
> 
> I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> 
> System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> this is made up)
> 
> Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> 
> where the natural order here is chronological.
> 
> Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> 
> Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> 
> which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

Thanks Stefan!  Works great.

> Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to
> 
> Sort Attribute Options Status = 1
> 
> as you suggested.
> 
> > (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> > 
> > I like this new feature, BUT
> > 
> > I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> > 
> > System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> > Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> > sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> > this is made up)
> > 
> > Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> > 
> > where the natural order here is chronological.
> > 
> > Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> > 
> > Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> > 
> > which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> > the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

Yes, many thanks, Stefan, from me, too! It's really great that you respond so quickly to requests and suggestions.

And thanks to David for the fine tuning, great suggestion.

Dennis

> Thanks Stefan!  Works great.
> 
> > Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to
> > 
> > Sort Attribute Options Status = 1
> > 
> > as you suggested.
> > 
> > > (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> > > 
> > > I like this new feature, BUT
> > > 
> > > I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> > > 
> > > System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> > > Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> > > sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> > > this is made up)
> > > 
> > > Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> > > 
> > > where the natural order here is chronological.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> > > 
> > > Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> > > 
> > > which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> > > the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

When we set Fix text = 1, according to the syntax, this should prevent users from modifying the text field during an edit, but it looks like it is blocking access at both time of edit and creation, meaning you can never add anything to it.  Is that the intended functionality?

Like many educational institutions we get "educational certificates" that are chain certificates..

With apache the full certificate chain is working as expected..

For elog I copied the appropriate files to server.crt and server.key

Netscape 3 is happy with that setup, Internet Explorer and Opera are mentioning the open certificate chain.

When I tried to copy the file known as SSLCACertificateFile in Apache to chain.crt elogd does not longer work and 

openssl s_client -showcerts -connect <myserver>:<elogd_port>

only shows: 

CONNECTED(00000003)
25523:error:14077410:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:sslv3 alert handshake failure:s23_clnt.c:562:

What do I do wrong?

Gerhard Schneider

> Like many educational institutions we get "educational certificates" that are chain certificates..
> 
> With apache the full certificate chain is working as expected..
> 
> For elog I copied the appropriate files to server.crt and server.key
> 
> Netscape 3 is happy with that setup, Internet Explorer and Opera are mentioning the open certificate chain.
> 
> When I tried to copy the file known as SSLCACertificateFile in Apache to chain.crt elogd does not longer work 
and 
> 
> openssl s_client -showcerts -connect <myserver>:<elogd_port>
> 
> only shows: 
> 
> CONNECTED(00000003)
> 25523:error:14077410:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:sslv3 alert handshake failure:s23_clnt.c:562:

To be honest I'm not an expert on SSL. I just use following code inside ELOG to initialize the SSL connection:

SSL_CTX *init_ssl(void)
{
   char str[256];
   SSL_METHOD *meth;
   SSL_CTX *ctx;

   SSL_library_init();
   SSL_load_error_strings();

   meth = SSLv23_method();
   ctx = SSL_CTX_new(meth);

   strlcpy(str, resource_dir, sizeof(str));
   strlcat(str, "ssl/server.crt", sizeof(str));
   if (!file_exist(str)) {
      eprintf("Cerificate file \"%s\" not found, aborting\n", str);
      return NULL;
   }
   if (SSL_CTX_use_certificate_file(ctx, str, SSL_FILETYPE_PEM) < 0)
      return NULL;

   strlcpy(str, resource_dir, sizeof(str));
   strlcat(str, "ssl/server.key", sizeof(str));
   if (!file_exist(str)) {
      eprintf("Key file \"%s\" not found, aborting\n", str);
      return NULL;
   }
   if (SSL_CTX_use_PrivateKey_file(ctx, str, SSL_FILETYPE_PEM) < 0)
      return NULL;
   if (SSL_CTX_check_private_key(ctx) < 0)
      return NULL;

   strlcpy(str, resource_dir, sizeof(str));
   strlcat(str, "ssl/chain.crt", sizeof(str));
   if (file_exist(str))
      SSL_CTX_use_certificate_chain_file(ctx, str);

   return ctx;
}

Maybe I need something different for chain certificates, but I don't know. I just copied these calls from the 
example which comes with the libssl library which I'm using. Maybe somebody has an idea how this could be 
improved. Actually looking at the code I see that the 'chain.crt' file is used. If you send me your files 
privately I could try them and see if I get a specific error code from the SSL library.

Thanks for reporting that bug. I realized that this was not working at all since a long time. I fixed it in SVN revision 2245.