> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:12:20 +0530
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: centos@centos.org
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Can't get .htaccess to work
>
> pls click below URL
>
> http://openwebmail.org/openwebmail/download/redhat/howto/htaccess/HOWTO.HTML
>
>
&
> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:12:20 +0530
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: centos@centos.org
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Can't get .htaccess to work
>
> pls click below URL
>
> http://openwebmail.org/openwebmail/download/redhat/howto/htaccess/HOWTO.HTML
>
>
Les Mikesell wrote on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:00:48 -0500:
> Isn't there an old joke that when the documentation and code differ they
> are probably both wrong?
;-)
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
___
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:39:24 -0500:
But oddly enough, the documentation does say that the Options directive
is permitted in .htaccess context:
Yes, I was wondering about that myself, I think it is not correct. But
"None" is not an Option, anyway. He/She
Les Mikesell wrote on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:39:24 -0500:
> But oddly enough, the documentation does say that the Options directive
> is permitted in .htaccess context:
Yes, I was wondering about that myself, I think it is not correct. But
"None" is not an Option, anyway. He/She should just remove
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Options not allowed here
Please, by now you should know what this means, even after obstinately
neglecting to look in the documentation.
But oddly enough, the documentation does say that the Options directive
is permitted in .htaccess context:
http://httpd.apache.o
pls click below URL
http://openwebmail.org/openwebmail/download/redhat/howto/htaccess/HOWTO.HTML
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Rcpt-To:
>
> Pam Astor wrote on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:03:16 -0400:
>
> > Options not allowed here
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Rcpt-To:
Pam Astor wrote on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:03:16 -0400:
> Options not allowed here
Please, by now you should know what this means, even after obstinately
neglecting to look in the documentation.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet
> >> That you got a server error is good.> > > Here are the last two log file
> >> entries for that httpd request:> > you want to look in the *error* log if
> >> you look for errors!> > > > I could not access the site,> > which means
> >> exactly what? ;-)
> >
> > OK, starting from scratch th
Pam Astor wrote:
That you got a server error is good.> > > Here are the last two log file entries for that httpd
request:> > you want to look in the *error* log if you look for errors!> > > > I could not
access the site,> > which means exactly what? ;-)
OK, starting from scratch this morning,
> That you got a server error is good.> > > Here are the last two log file
> entries for that httpd request:> > you want to look in the *error* log if you
> look for errors!> > > > I could not access the site,> > which means exactly
> what? ;-)
OK, starting from scratch this morning,
here is
Pam Astor wrote on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:54:17 -0400:
That you got a server error is good.
> Here are the last two log file entries for that httpd request:
you want to look in the *error* log if you look for errors!
> > I could not access the site,
which means exactly what? ;-)
Kai
--
Kai Sch
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Perrin wrote on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:16:54 -0400:
>
> >
>
> Jim, you forget that he's using .htaccess, the above cannot work there. He
> has to leave that out.
I didn't really forget, I was thinking more of having
Pam Astor wrote:
The syntax for auth stuff changed between Apache 2.0 and 2.2 (which is
used in CentOS 5). In particular, you'll need a AuthBasicProvider
declaration:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_auth_basic.html#authbasicprovider
Thans Paul,
That's new news to me :)
For the OP, I
> Jim, you forget that he's using .htaccess, the above cannot work there. He >
> has to leave that out.> > Pam: if you can access the directory just fine this
> does *not* mean that > you misconfigured your .htaccess file (although it
> looked like that as > well), it means it is not getting us
> Jim, you forget that he's using .htaccess, the above cannot work there. He >
> has to leave that out.> > Pam: if you can access the directory just fine this
> does *not* mean that > you misconfigured your .htaccess file (although it
> looked like that as > well), it means it is not getting us
Jim Perrin wrote on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:16:54 -0400:
>
Jim, you forget that he's using .htaccess, the above cannot work there. He
has to leave that out.
Pam: if you can access the directory just fine this does *not* mean that
you misconfigured your .htaccess file (although it looked like that
> > >For my httpd.conf, I have one main configuration file in /etc/httpd/conf
> > and for each virtual domain, I have individual
> > >www.mydomain.com.conf files with associated virtual host tags inside, and
> > located in /etc/httpd/conf.d directory.
>
> Okay. These are vhost configs only. You *
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Pam Astor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >For my httpd.conf, I have one main configuration file in /etc/httpd/conf
> and for each virtual domain, I have individual
> >www.mydomain.com.conf files with associated virtual host tags inside, and
> located in /etc/httpd/co
>
> > Do I also need to add a new entry in httpd.conf or load a new apache
>> > module?
> >
> >Not by default, no.
>>
> >There are several AllowOverrides statements in the default httpd.conf.
> >Which did you modify?
> >
> >The one you wanted should be around line 327, looking like this:
>>
> > Do I also need to add a new entry in httpd.conf or load a new apache
> > module?
>
> Not by default, no.
>
> There are several AllowOverrides statements in the default httpd.conf.
> Which did you modify?
>
> The one you wanted should be around line 327, looking like this:
>
> Options I
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 6:37 AM, Pam Astor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK I tried that and it still would not work, I am not prompted for
> a username or password on the site I want to protect.
>
> Do I also need to add a new entry in httpd.conf or load a new apache
> module?
Not by default, no.
> > The syntax for auth stuff changed between Apache 2.0 and 2.2 (which is
> > used in CentOS 5). In particular, you'll need a AuthBasicProvider
> > declaration:
> >
> > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_auth_basic.html#authbasicprovider
>
> Thans Paul,
> That's new news to me :)
>
> F
On Saturday 19 April 2008 03:35:52 Paul Heinlein wrote:
> The syntax for auth stuff changed between Apache 2.0 and 2.2 (which is
> used in CentOS 5). In particular, you'll need a AuthBasicProvider
> declaration:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_auth_basic.html#authbasicprovider
Than
> The syntax for auth stuff changed between Apache 2.0 and 2.2 (which is
> used in CentOS 5). In particular, you'll need a AuthBasicProvider
> declaration:
>
>http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_auth_basic.html#authbasicprovider
Hi,
Thanks much,
I read the URL, it is a bit too crypti
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Pam Astor wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to password protect one of my web accessable
directories and I can't get .htaccess to work in a Centos 5.1 box
Here's what I did
I created an .htaccess file with the contents:
AuthName "Restricted Area"
AuthType Basic
AuthUserFile /home/my
Pam Astor wrote:
When I reload, apache will not reload.
What am I doing wrong?
I suspect your only fault is not checking the logs..
Right after you issue service httpd start,
go look at /var/log/messages and /var/log/httpd/*
--
Cheers,
Morten
:wq
__
Hi,
I'm trying to password protect one of my web accessable
directories and I can't get .htaccess to work in a Centos 5.1 box
Here's what I did
I created an .htaccess file with the contents:
AuthName "Restricted Area"
AuthType Basic
AuthUserFile /home/mysite/.htpasswd
AuthGroupFile /dev/nul
28 matches
Mail list logo
