Hi Nat - > Whoops! Returning OK terminates the PostReadRequest phase, > apparently. Changing that to return DECLINED made PerlSetEnv work > again. Sorry, > > Nat Before reading your post I had implemented a similar handler, although I put it in as a TransHandler, so I guess I should move it to PostReadRequest to pick things up a little earlier. I'm returning DONE in mine when I spot a bad request, which also seems to prevent any logging from happening without defining a LogHandler. Hitting it with a browser gets me a "document contained no data" message. I'm just curious about the relative merits of returning DONE vs returning BAD_REQUEST in both PostReadRequestHandler and LogHandler. Larry Leszczynski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Nathan Torkington
- Re: New Micro$oft vulnerability? Mithun Bhattacharya
- Re: New Micro$oft vulnerability? Michael
- Re: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Angel R. Rivera
- Re: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Nathan Torkington
- RE: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Alex Porras
- Re: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Jeremy Howard
- Re: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? lembark
- Re: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Reuven M. Lerner
- Re: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Nathan Torkington
- RE: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Larry Leszczynski
- RE: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Geoffrey Young
- RE: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Geoffrey Young
- RE: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Lyle Brooks
- RE: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Nick Tonkin
- RE: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Geoffrey Young
- Re: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Tim Peoples
- Re: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Tim Peoples
- Re: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Nathan Torkington
- Re: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Nathan Torkington
- Re: [OT] New Micro$oft vulnerability? Tim Peoples