I've got the 2.0 version working now.
The only question I've got (which will affect the 1.3 patch)
is what do you do when you get a 0.9 request.
I've set it up so that IF the hostname is blank on the incoming request
it will use r->server->server_name. as a default.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:53 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: patch: proxy-preserve-host
>
>
>
> Well, I rewrote the patch for apache 1.3.23 and at the same
> time I took
> some advice to simplify it. The original code prints the new
> header into
> the connection then later skips sending the original host
> header. My first
> patch just created an option to toggle both of these actions
> off. This new
> patch actually changes it around a little so that under
> normal conditions
> the original Host header is replaced in table with the new
> Host header and
> then my config option just toggles that one action off.
>
> Am working on the correct versions, or are there more
> up-to-date snapshots
> or should I be grabbing somthing out of CVS?
>
> Now, I don't have any experence with the apache 2 code tree.
> I'm going to
> pretend I know what I'm doing and try to port it over but it
> will take me a
> bit to learn some of the new api first.
>
> (See attached file: apache_1.3.23-ProxyPreserveHost)
>
>
>
>
>
> Graham Leggett
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> .fm> cc:
>
> Sent by: Subject: Re:
> patch: proxy-preserve-host
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> rg
>
>
>
>
>
> 01/29/2002
>
> 04:08 AM
>
> Please respond
>
> to
>
> modproxy-dev
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In the current code you can't reverse proxy to virtual
> hosts or any other
> > host that relies on a host header because the original host
> header is
> > deleted and a new host header is created using the proxy's
> idea of the
> > hostname. This patch creates a config option called
> ProxyPreserveHost
> which
> > allows you to tell apache to send the original host header
> instead of a
> new
> > one.
> >
> > Might anyone else be interested in this patch or is my case unique?
> >
> > It's really only useful during reverse proxying and not
> during regular
> > proxying so do you think that I should only enable the option if
> > ProxyRequests is not on?
>
> This would be useful during regular proxying - as this option would be
> needed for transparent proxying to work.
>
> This patch looks quite useful, as it answers Eli Marmor's transparent
> proxy question as well.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's a moon
> over
> Bourbon Street
>
> tonight..."
>
>
