Re: [PATCH] Support PROXY protocol

From: Kinkie <gkinkie_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:38:07 +0200

> In all seriousness "haproxy-protocol" is probably the most correct
> descriptive right now. But I am trying hard to avoid naming a competitor
> in our most visible documentations.

How so? We are not a commercial product; I have no issues with naming
a competitor.
Received on Sun Jul 13 2014 - 20:38:16 MDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Alex Rousskov: "Re: [PATCH] Support PROXY protocol"
Previous message: Amos Jeffries: "Re: [PATCH 5/8] reconfiguration leaks: objects tied to http_port"
In reply to: Amos Jeffries: "Re: [PATCH] Support PROXY protocol"
Next in thread: Alex Rousskov: "Re: [PATCH] Support PROXY protocol"
Reply: Alex Rousskov: "Re: [PATCH] Support PROXY protocol"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jul 14 2014 - 12:00:12 MDT