From: "Steven Levine" Received: from [192.168.100.201] (HELO mail.2rosenthals.com) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.10) with ESMTP id 11063110 for ecs-isp@2rosenthals.com; Sat, 05 Oct 2024 01:27:30 -0400 Received: from [192.168.200.201] (port=54413 helo=mail2.2rosenthals.com) by mail.2rosenthals.com with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1swxK4-000000006js-10nC for ecs-isp@2rosenthals.com; Sat, 05 Oct 2024 01:27:20 -0400 Received: from mta-202b.earthlink-vadesecure.net ([51.81.232.241]:54827 helo=mta-202a.earthlink-vadesecure.net) by mail2.2rosenthals.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1swxK0-0000000052s-02xQ for ecs-isp@2rosenthals.com; Sat, 05 Oct 2024 01:27:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; bh=YvtMpQ7jJR/SujheEaN/CXHzhlRtm88TaGkWsO TmwCM=; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=earthlink.net; h=from:reply-to:subject: date:to:cc:resent-date:resent-from:resent-to:resent-cc:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:list-unsubscribe-post: list-subscribe:list-post:list-owner:list-archive; q=dns/txt; s=dk12062016; t=1728106035; x=1728710835; b=d4s/exUYxgwwEqECvNo5FkHQUob eXMvvheC4cN8WxGOLBnIePtsdqyOLKbDHfnazbsE0H3kmE7fCQwTYohfAruyf+fcXht/fKn AmHT0vaAfFQi0wUfaWgkKp2cpcOalY0OZ0KJrZjmOcsjQU3+ntar/bLj1u0GdftlNc1uOCa dew9qtuRXct0aWE1xSFNhGCeWIe19+nQzSuFpjqaWaGF6pTctISUKBXI466vNvIKQmkI1ni /Iy+JinlGMTAwdtW9l2kuFAWL67nZAo8l/o4ynFrDJcdpuLwt6MWTqetfJ47sG24jOEGusy o2XrnFiVUhqyMqLcC3Ngb7TCGd76skA== Received: from slamain ([172.58.119.108]) by vsel2nmtao02p.internal.vadesecure.com with ngmta id 67f87150-17fb77485c4276c9; Sat, 05 Oct 2024 05:27:14 +0000 Message-ID: <6700cbb9.13.mr2ice.fgrirsq@earthlink.net> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2024 22:16:41 -0700 To: "eCS ISP Mailing List" In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [eCS-ISP] SSL certs & apache 2.4.61 X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v3.00.11.24/60 In , on 10/05/24 at 12:30 AM, "Lewis G Rosenthal" said: Hi, >ISTR that we had determined that last time 'round. I have never tested it >on another platform to ensure that it's not something unique to OS/2 >(and perhaps our shells). I've gotten a bit more knowledgable about configuration file expressions since then. This has nothing to do with our port. There's no patches in this part of the code. IMO, it's just an implementation choice. If you know the environment variables your configuration file will reference, it's a non-issue to define the variables in whatever wrapper invokes httpd which is suppress the warnings. If you are willing live with the warnings, you can just leave the variables undefined. The warning is not going to break anything. Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Steven Levine" Warp/DIY/BlueLion etc. www.scoug.com www.arcanoae.com www.warpcave.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------