https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #22 from William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org 2010-09-24 02:20:07
EDT ---
The question was raised; Microsoft released a spec
In this case, only the IETF defines HTTP.
If it complies with HTTP, then anyone is free to build
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #19 from Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com 2010-07-27 14:50:05
EDT ---
I understand the ethical reasons for wanting to implement this, but it would be
nice to have perhaps some override options we could specify in a per
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #20 from Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com 2010-07-27 14:50:51
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #19)
I understand the ethical reasons for wanting to implement this, but it would
be
This should be for *not* wanting. :)
--
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #21 from William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org 2010-07-27 15:05:09
EDT ---
Why not open the request to the back-end right away?
It would improve performance even on regular GET requests
In fact, it does nothing of the kind,
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
Kenny Colliander Nordin ke...@najt.nu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #10 from William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org 2010-07-16 11:37:59
EDT ---
Hans, this is an HTTP protocol question, unrecognized methods are allowed
but they must follow HTTP/1.1 itself, and if MS's protocol isn't HTTP/1.1
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #11 from Hans Maurer h...@red.roses.de 2010-07-16 13:35:26 EDT ---
William,
since you're addressing me personally: We've move to a VPN-based solution long
ago, so I don't need this functionality anymore.
However, there
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEEDINFO
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #14 from Hans Maurer h...@red.roses.de 2010-07-16 14:24:48 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
The upstream request had a Content-Length header of about 2 GB.
Oh, actually 1 GB, not 2 GB.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #13 from Hans Maurer h...@red.roses.de 2010-07-16 14:23:03 EDT ---
William,
actually, there were(*) two parallel HTTP requests, one for traffic from
Outlook to Exchange and one for traffic from Exchange to Outlook. The
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|NEW
---
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@apache.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P4 |P5
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #17 from Graham Mainwaring gra...@mhn.org 2010-07-16 15:46:57 EDT
---
I don't think it's HTTP 1.1 abuse. I can't find anything in RFC2068 that speaks
to this point one way or the other. I don't think it's required for mod_proxy
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #18 from Graham Mainwaring gra...@mhn.org 2010-07-16 15:56:29 EDT
---
Also, regarding vulnerability CVE-2005-2088, surely this can be solved by
improving the header parsing rather than by destroying useful functionality
that
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #8 from Emmanuel Fusté emmanuel.fu...@laposte.net 2010-07-13
08:59:25 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
Hello,
with Apache 2.2.11 it is still not functioning. Microsoft released a
protocol
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #9 from Emmanuel Fusté emmanuel.fu...@laposte.net 2010-07-13
09:00:12 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
Hello,
with Apache 2.2.11 it is still not functioning. Microsoft released a
protocol
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
Graham Mainwaring gra...@mhn.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gra...@mhn.org
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
--- Comment #7 from Nick Kew n...@webthing.com 2009-06-07 00:40:26 PST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Hello,
with Apache 2.2.11 it is still not functioning. Microsoft released a protocol
specification here:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029
m...@familiekling.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40029.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
26 matches
Mail list logo
