On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/08/2016 11:14 AM, Eric Covener wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 1:58 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> Still, I think we want to add a guard to rip out the offending header >>> and not ap_die() in handling a 500 error, that's quite the loop, and >>> if you could create the problem, so can another unsuspecting admin. >> >> >> Is 500 status code and status line w/ original body but zapped "bad" >> headers reasonable? > > > Seems reasonable to me... > > Is there something lower-level than ap_die() that doesn't actually go back > through the filter system again? Having strong guarantees on behavior would > be useful in this situation. >
I didn't see anything too promising. I committed the ugly thing I had because I will be tied up for a bit. -- Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com
