I'd double check and triple check - something undefined can't match anything. What is the EXACT code you're using? Also, rewrite has -f to check to see if it's a file, and -d for a directory, just like the standard "test" command, Perl, and other common tools. These common tools use -e to test for the existence of a file, so if you use -e I bet 99% of all users will think it works like -f and -d checking for the existing of a file. Please if you're going to add something, call it UNDEF, DEFINED, NULL, or something ese which makes it's menaing clear, rather than making it appear to mean something other thanit does. -- Ray B. Morris [email protected]
Strongbox - The next generation in site security: http://www.bettercgi.com/strongbox/ Throttlebox - Intelligent Bandwidth Control http://www.bettercgi.com/throttlebox/ Strongbox / Throttlebox affiliate program: http://www.bettercgi.com/affiliates/user/register.php On 02/12/2009 01:25:46 PM, Michele Waldman wrote: > RewriteCond ${REMOTE_USER} . does not seem to work when the > REMOTE_USER is > not defined. The statement evaluates to true. > > I plan of writing -e directive. > > Michele > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Ionescu [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:34 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Making mod_auth_digest mysql > > 2009/2/8 Michele Waldman <[email protected]>: > > But, I have to know how does > > > > RewriteCond ${REMOTE_USER} . > > > > Is the . for any character? Why does it evaluate correctly when > undefined > > and !="" doesn't? > > . is one "any character", yes. ="" is empty (equiv. to the regEx ^$). > If you negate the meaning with an exclamation mark, !="", it stands > for "is not empty". If '.' evaluates, there's at least one character > returned for your search string. But ${REMOTE_USER} should read > %{REMOTE_USER} (% instead of $). > > Bob > >
