Add option to configure TLS server name indication (SNI) #1669
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Is it an option that would work with rustls too? |
Oh yes it should be (I edited the commit to include rustls). If this feature is acceptable I will recheck the code a bit later to ensure it is correct, because I am not sure if the current code cover all the tls features. I will also need to add to the blocking client too. |
seanmonstar
reviewed
Nov 6, 2022
|
Is there anything I should add? I searched for tests for disabling certificate validation and there weren't any I could find, so I did not add test for this feature. I have tested the feature manually and it provides a workaround for issue 1328. |
CI check for styling failed and I fixed it hope that is okay. |
Nutomic
pushed a commit
to Nutomic/reqwest
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 7, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Is this feature acceptable?
I could use this feature to workaround this issue. If this feature is acceptable I will clean the code, add docs and tests if needed.