Am Montag, den 15.06.2015, 07:38 -0400 schrieb Steve Matzura:> If I could remove this message from this list, I would! I just figured > out what my problem was, and it's something I thought *FOR SURE* I had > fixed. I've looked at this thing so many times, I fell into the trap > of not seeing the forest for the trees. I had inadvertently omitted > the '<' before the first certificate definition. I guess there really > is something to the technique of walking away from a problem for a > while--in this case, overnight--and then coming tack to it and seeing > it as if for the first time. I am able to successfully connect via > Telnet and will carry on with my testing and integration with Postfix. > Thanks to all for their help.No need to. I'ts just another addition addition to a "knowledge" base, which might be helpful for someone else sometimes else. Congrats for your problem being solved and thanks for sharing it for further references. Regards, -M
What is the reasoning behind that `<' anyway? It just appears so odd that a path should have that at its front. On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:20:25 +0200, you wrote:>Am Montag, den 15.06.2015, 07:38 -0400 schrieb Steve Matzura: >> If I could remove this message from this list, I would! I just figured >> out what my problem was, and it's something I thought *FOR SURE* I had >> fixed. I've looked at this thing so many times, I fell into the trap >> of not seeing the forest for the trees. I had inadvertently omitted >> the '<' before the first certificate definition. I guess there really >> is something to the technique of walking away from a problem for a >> while--in this case, overnight--and then coming tack to it and seeing >> it as if for the first time. I am able to successfully connect via >> Telnet and will carry on with my testing and integration with Postfix. >> Thanks to all for their help. > >No need to. I'ts just another addition addition to a "knowledge" base, >which might be helpful for someone else sometimes else. > >Congrats for your problem being solved and thanks for sharing it for >further references. > >Regards, >-M
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:32:39AM -0400, Steve Matzura wrote:> What is the reasoning behind that `<' anyway? It just appears so odd > that a path should have that at its front.I would guess: - make it clearer it's a file and not a string - follow similar syntax as input redirection in sh/perl/.. B