On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
One thing that might break (but that Wget doesn't yet support anyway) is
NTLM, which seems to authorize the *connections* individual connections.
Yes it does. It certainly makes things more complicated, as you would have to
exclude such a connection
From: Hrvoje Niksic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To get the stable sources that have this bug fixed, you might want to
check out the head of the wget-1_9 branch in CVS. Heiko, how about
creating a bugfix 1.9 release for Windows?
No problem with that, but wouldn't a dot release be better ?
Daniel Stenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes it does. It certainly makes things more complicated, as you
would have to exclude such a connection from the checks (at least I
think you want that, I don't think you'll be forced to do so). And
you also need to exclude HTTPS-connections from this
Here is debug output
:/FTPD# wget ftp://ftp.dcn-asu.ru/pub/windows/update/winxp/xpsp2-1224.exe -d
DEBUG output created by Wget 1.8.1 on linux-gnu.
--13:25:55--
The problem is that the server replies with login incorrect, which
normally means that authorization has failed and that further retries
would be pointless. Other than having a natural language parser
built-in, Wget cannot know that the authorization is in fact correct,
but that the server
Kempston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, i understabd that, but lftp hadles it fine even without
specifying any additional option ;)
But then lftp is hammering servers when real unauthorized entry
occurs, no?
I`m sure you can work something out
Well, I'm satisfied with what Wget does now.
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
I'm already treating SSL and non-SSL connections as incompatible. But I'm
curious as to why you say name-based virtual hosting isn't possible over
SSL?
To quote the Apache docs: Name-based virtual hosting cannot be used with SSL
secure servers
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
Assume that Wget has retrieved a document from the host A, which
hasn't closed the connection in accordance with Wget's keep-alive
request.
Then Wget needs to connect to host B, which is really the same as A
because the provider uses DNS-based virtual hosts. Is it OK
Herold Heiko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Windows MSVC binary at http://xoomer.virgilio.it/hherold
Thanks. I assume this means that it compiled without a hitch.
Anyone else with a report? Should I release 1.9.1 now?
Tony Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's possible that the server responding to the IP address forwards
connections to multiple backend servers. These backend servers may
or may not know about all the resources that the gateway server know
about.
That is precisely the case I'm worried
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
The thing is, I don't want to bloat Wget with obscure options to turn
off even more obscure (and *very* rarely needed) optimizations. Wget
has enough command-line options as it is. If there are cases where
the optimization doesn't work, I'd rather omit it completely.
Tony Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
The thing is, I don't want to bloat Wget with obscure options to turn
off even more obscure (and *very* rarely needed) optimizations. Wget
has enough command-line options as it is. If there are cases where
the optimization doesn't
12 matches
Mail list logo
