Re: Link Advertisement - Please Reply ASAP
Hi Editor, I hope you are good. I sent you an email regarding link insertion/guest posting on your website haproxy.org some time ago. But, I didn't get your reply. So, if you are getting my email, please reply with the option. If you have any price, please let me know. I will send you the payment via PayPal. Waiting for your reply! Philip De Bruyn Media Outreach Development Manager Gambling Media On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 3:34 PM Philip De Bruyn < philip.bettingme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Editor, > > > I came across your site haproxy.org through some research when looking > for potential betting/gambling link partners. I'd like to work on an > arrangement to get my site included in a link on a piece of high quality, > relevant content on your site or as a link as a partner. > > We can either work on a link text addition agreement to your existing > pages, or I have a team of writers that can produce high quality content > for your site. > > Please let me know what the format and the arrangement would entail? > > Looking forward to your reply. > > > > Philip De Bruyn > > Media Outreach Development Manager > > Gambling Media >
server cookie value uniqueness
Hello ! I'm adding two servers s01 and s02 to the current config and setting the same cookie value as for existing s1 and s2. These cookies are here to permit sticky sessions. What may be the behaviour of haproxy in this situation ? 'haproxy -c' on the configuration file does not show any warning or error. backend one ... option redispatch balance roundrobin server s1 10.100.0.93:2000 cookie s1 server s2 10.100.0.93:2001 cookie s2 server s01 10.100.3.101:2000 cookie s1 server s02 10.100.3.101:2001 cookie s2 option allbackups server sb1 10.100.131.33:2000 cookie s1 backup server sb2 10.100.131.33:2001 cookie s2 backup -- Best regards, Artur
[PR] Allow "no option forwardfor"
Dear list! Author: Samuel Maftoul Number of patches: 2 This is an automated relay of the Github pull request: Allow "no option forwardfor" Patch title(s): [WIP] allow "no option forwardfor" Require both frontend and backend to have option forwardfor to enable it Link: https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/pull/1853 Edit locally: wget https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/pull/1853.patch && vi 1853.patch Apply locally: curl https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/pull/1853.patch | git am - Description: Fixes #130 * Move the `forwardfor` logic before we check the negation of options ( https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/blob/94f763b5 e4b2aafd2c6d65f074fdc28735556f25/src/cfgparse-listen.c#L2071 ) so we can negate it. * Add logic to differentiate KWM_NO and KWM_STD so we modify options for the proxy. * Modify logic to include the header only if both frontend and backend have the header enabled. About this last point (and the 2nd commit of this PR) , I'm not sure it's what I'm supposed to do. Maybe I should also some `no_options` logic to properly disable the header in the backend ? Also, this PR so far is missing docs, but I want the logic to be clear before writing the document (or should it be done the other way around ?). Finally, it may also miss some tests, should I add them to htt ps://github.com/haproxy/haproxy/blob/025945f12cde56dde22baec286393fd1f 048c0fc/reg-tests/http-rules/except-forwardfor-originalto.vtc ? Instructions: This github pull request will be closed automatically; patch should be reviewed on the haproxy mailing list (haproxy@formilux.org). Everyone is invited to comment, even the patch's author. Please keep the author and list CCed in replies. Please note that in absence of any response this pull request will be lost.
