Subject: DocOz dramatic Anti-aging results

From: Young Skin by DocOZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 10:39:59 -0700

In Celebrity News:
Looking good in Summer Heat
==============================

Summer time is knocking at the door, and so is hot weather.
- Noone like to wear a full face of makeup in the heat, 
but everyone wants to look good . . .

DocOz found a way to refresh your skin so that you wont need makeup -
EVER AGAIN.

View Celeb Before and After's -> http://www.bagwooden.com/covergirl/skincare/droz/view.video

/\/\/\ message settings http://www.bagwooden.com/n3spfr.sng4 /\/\/\
Alert System Notifications,1 1 0 7 V a l e r i a-Dr- Marion, TX 78124

Thanks Brandon - yes this, like the manual re-install of the key file "sort of" solves the problem. The issue is that as soon as you check in the key file, any other users that get latest on this checked in key file are now going to experience this bug. If any of those users check in their "fix" and I get latest, then my machine is now broken again... and so on. Microsoft have started a trouble ticket on this and assigned it to the VS2010 team and the VSS team.   JasonD May 17 '10 at 3:55
1	  	
Interesting. I did not run into that problem when adding the pfx to the new CSP. To my knowledge SN -i does not change the pfx file so you shouldn't have to check anything in afterwards. However if you were to change the pfx file in anyway such as resetting the password, that would cause an issue since it would change the pfx file. Does your solution build with that pfx file from any other machine? If so then the pfx file is correct just not set to the correct CSP on your machine that is having build issues.   Brandon Manchester May 17 '10 at 18:14
At first I tried only the sn -i part but it complained that the password was incorrect (though it was correct). I removed the certificate, reinstalled it and then sn -i... worked. Basically confirming that for me, both steps were required. Reinstall cert then execute the sn command.   Dodgyrabbit Jun 16 '10 at 17:29	
I've found in both VSS and TFS that if you run the sn -i command it doesn't work unless you have the PFX file checked out, and when you check it in it doesn't work for other developers on the network. I'll have to try the re-install cert then run the sn -i command. We need it to work on all developer machines in the office.   JasonD Aug 16 '10 at 3:48	
Brandon's workaround worked for me and allowed me to properly publish our ClickOnce application. I did not need to have the PFX file checked out in TFS to for this to work either. Thanks!   yourbuddypal Feb 8 '11 at 20:5	
This worked for me as well, however I never had to do this in the past. VS used to just pop up and ask for the password for each key. What has changed?   Kevin Berridge Sep 16 '11 at 19:51 	
If you get prompted for the password and don't know it - just try clicking Enter. The PFX may not have a password, but sn.exe will always prompt for one.   SliverNinja Jul 29 '13 at 20:Check Stefan De Bruijn commYeah, we tried that one with Microsoft support as well, and that's the way to do the code signing import. The problem really seems to be that the certificate password gets lost during the checkin process source safe. But this doesn't look to be the real problem. It looks if you enter the certificate details on Widnows 7 machine #1, and then move that exact same file to a different machine and register it, the registration will work, but the build will fail. Microsoft are still looking into it for us. For now we had to disable code signing and sign manually during The code used to generate the Thumbnails should be checking for the following:Is there a cached version of the thumbnail.
Is the cached version newer than the original image.
If either of these are false the thumbnail should be generated and returned no matter what. If they are both true then the following check should be made:Is there a header
Is the cached version's last modified time the same as the 
If either of these are false the cached thumbnail should be returned.
Thanks MidnightLightning! There is a cache folder where thumbnail JPGs are created and reused from, though I have the feeling within here lies the problem of the script that I have bought ( and seems to work fine for others )   Sam Feb 7 '11 at 21:11 Thanks for your detective & spot on clues Capsule! First things first: theres no database. Your findings are same as mine: its waiting 90% of the time for? Crazy little thumbs. Interesting thoughts on the last-modified headers, because according to James post here, I had to set those Last-modified headers to a STATIC (fixed) time, not dynamic/always changing time set by php gmdate generators. Or perhaps you mean something else here? (Nominated for bounty)   Sam Feb 23 '11 at 23:28To be perfect, it should reflect the real generation date, for example by getting the filemtime() of the cached thumbnail. What would be interesting to test is access an empty PHP file, or a PHP file just echoing "test" and see how much waiting you've got on thi
 s one. Maybe the whole server is just slow and impacts every single PHP script, whatever it does.   Capsule Feb 23 '11 at 23:35 36ms. On one of the servers I'm administrating (which is not a beast... dual core with 2Gb of RAL), I get almost half this, like 20ms on static files.   Capsule Feb 24 '11 at 6:56Interesting... 1.what software / online tool do you use to measure? 2. are your faster 20 ms measurements consistent (how mano you find your results to be varying? In my case it really varies alot depending on what test tool I use. some are very consistent ( gtmetrix.com) some are really varying  and its difficult to give times in XX ms since they alter every time...   Sam Mar 4 '11 at 21:11 I'm using Firebug's NET tab. 20ms is the fastest timing I'm getting. It's varying between 20 and 28. Of course the 36ms I measured on your ser  If the thumbnails are cached, make sure the script that's pulling them from cache is using readfile() rather than file_get_contents() followed by an ec
 ho, which waits to output anything until the whole file is moved into memory of the PHP script.   MidnightLightning Feb 7 '11 at 21:20Better yet- if the files are cached, generate the HTML in a way that directly pulls in the cached image from disk without going through PHP. That's what I do in my scripts for videodb.net   andig Mar 4 '11 at 11:0"There is a cache folder where..." and how quickly are they dereferenced? Does your URL point directly to cached file or a PHP script? Do you redirect or use readfile()? Does the same PHP script contain the thumbnail generation code - or do you defer loading the bulk of the code using include/erquire?   symcbean Mar 10 '11 at
If both of these are true then a 304 http status should be returned. I'm not sure if its required but I also personally return the Cache-Control, Expires and Last-Modified headers along with the 304.hanks Goran, however this is not the elegant solution that I wish for: I think there is something fishy in my case, and that normally it really doesnt take as long for a php script to know wether to pass a 304 header or to bake the image etc. thanks anyway for your suggestion as it directs the problem from an entirely new perspective! W

In regards to GZipping, I've been informed that there is no need to GZip images so ignore that part of my comment.