Re: SSL Performance HIT in REVERSE? the clients are PEGGED as opposed to the server?
From: Keith W. McCammon (km_at_km.com)
Date: 05/19/04
- Next message: Alek Davis: "Re: Rindjael and testing failure"
- Previous message: Keith W. McCammon: "Re: SSL Performance HIT in REVERSE? the clients are PEGGED as opposed to the server?"
- In reply to: anon: "Re: SSL Performance HIT in REVERSE? the clients are PEGGED as opposed to the server?"
- Next in thread: Keith W. McCammon: "Re: SSL Performance HIT in REVERSE? the clients are PEGGED as opposed to the server?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:25:26 -0400
> Of all the newsgroups, VB programmers tend to explain things better than
> most other programmers, that's why.
Heck, if I always wanted a thorough and concise explanation for things, I
wouldn't even bother posting to Usenet half of the time...
- Next message: Alek Davis: "Re: Rindjael and testing failure"
- Previous message: Keith W. McCammon: "Re: SSL Performance HIT in REVERSE? the clients are PEGGED as opposed to the server?"
- In reply to: anon: "Re: SSL Performance HIT in REVERSE? the clients are PEGGED as opposed to the server?"
- Next in thread: Keith W. McCammon: "Re: SSL Performance HIT in REVERSE? the clients are PEGGED as opposed to the server?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
