Bug#322825: Bug#322739: Possibility of working around this bug in stable
On 8/19/05, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Chris Lawrence wrote: > > As indicated, the user-agent should be "reportbug/([0-9.]+) > > (Debian)". I'm not sure where the python-urllib requests are coming > > from that someone reported; they are probably bugs (i.e. I forgot to > > supply the user-agent properly somewhere). > > What version are you planning on fixing this in? I ask because we'll > want to be able to get rid of this kludge in the rewrite rules in the > future since it is suboptimal and we don't really want to be > supporting two separate versions of the cgi scripts. My hope was to fix it in the next release... I had been planning a substantial rewrite, but I think I can rewrite to use the mbox code fairly easily. Chris -- Chris Lawrence - http://blog.lordsutch.com/
Bug#322825: Bug#322739: Possibility of working around this bug in stable
On 8/19/05, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Miernik wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:59:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > I think it would be reasonable to work around this bug in stable > > > > Well, currently the version in unstable doesn't work also. > > That version can be fixed, so I'm not particularly concerned about it. As indicated, the user-agent should be "reportbug/([0-9.]+) (Debian)". I'm not sure where the python-urllib requests are coming from that someone reported; they are probably bugs (i.e. I forgot to supply the user-agent properly somewhere). Chris -- Chris Lawrence - http://blog.lordsutch.com/
