Amaury Jacquot wrote:
>
> Quoting Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > HTTP GET requests with parameters ("?" and something after it) don't
> > work with mod_auth_digest of Apache 2.0 (I'm using CVS snapshot
> > httpd-2.0_2002032321.tar.gz).
>
> Note:
> I had the same problem in the 1.3 br
Quoting Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> HTTP GET requests with parameters ("?" and something after it) don't
> work with mod_auth_digest of Apache 2.0 (I'm using CVS snapshot
> httpd-2.0_2002032321.tar.gz).
Note:
I had the same problem in the 1.3 branch (patched and it worked)
I had sent t
Pedro Melo Cunha sent this patch to the modperl list, it probably
belongs here.
He also mentions that gnats won't accept his report.
Here is the original post:
Original Message
Subject: Be carefull with apache 1.3.24
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:01:24 +
From: Pedro Melo Cunh
HTTP GET requests with parameters ("?" and something after it) don't
work with mod_auth_digest of Apache 2.0 (I'm using CVS snapshot
httpd-2.0_2002032321.tar.gz).
It seems that the cause is PR#7063.
With basic auth, everything works flawlessly, and the only problem is
with digest.
>From loo
There are two problems I see with make_allow() right now. First, it's
using method_registry; if ap_method_register() has never been called
[probably meaning you aren't running DAV], then make_allow() will segfault
as Brian pointed out. ap_method_registry_init() needs to be called
unconditionall
"Sander Temme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> | | | MIN=Minor NOR=Normal EHN=Ehnancement
>>> |
>> ^^^
>> does anyone fancy spelling
>>
"Thom May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
>> +---+
>> | Bugzilla Bug ID |
>> | +-
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
> Okay on the etags tests now, but both of the apache/options tests
> fail on a clean checkout+rebuild.
I see the problem. Fix on the way.
--Cliff
--
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cha
Cliff Woolley wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
>
>>apache/etagsNOK 61FAILED tests 1-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19,
>>21-25, 27-34, 36-37, 39-42, 44-52, 54, 56-61
>>Failed 50/61 tests, 18.03% okay
>>
>>apache/options..NOK 2FAILED tests
>>1-2
>>Failed 2/2 tests, 0.00%
On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Brian Pane wrote:
> apache/etagsNOK 61FAILED tests 1-5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19,
> 21-25, 27-34, 36-37, 39-42, 44-52, 54, 56-61
> Failed 50/61 tests, 18.03% okay
>
> apache/options..NOK 2FAILED tests
> 1-2
> Failed 2/2 tests, 0.00% okay
Fixed. "HEAD" was
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> HEAD /toto/ HTTP/1.0
> Host: vtxrm2
>
> HTTP/1.1 501 Method Not Implemented
This was actually an unrelated bug... it's fixed now.
--
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlottes
>> | | | MIN=Minor NOR=Normal EHN=Ehnancement |
> ^^^
> does anyone fancy spelling
> Enhancement right?
Why don't you file
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> +---+
> | Bugzilla Bug ID |
> | +-+
> | |
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
Martin Kraemer wrote:
> > (192.168.69.1) (pgtm0035)
> > client <--> Apache-1.3.13 <--> Apache-1.3.24
> >Proxy Proxy *and*
> > Origin Server
One question: in the above senario, where is the data coming from? Is
there anoth
Joshua Slive wrote:
> This may be my imagination, but won't this allow any module (or even cgi
> script) to set the Server header and override the default one. Do we want
> this? (I'm undecided, but it is a significant change from previous
> behavior.)
The attached patch fixes this so that the
Martin Kraemer wrote:
> Still, we get chunked encoding where the client never expressed the wish
> (or capability) to handle it.
As far as I understand, the decision to chunk (or not) is handled within
buff.c - seems proxy is not signalling buff.c correctly on what the
protocol level is on the c
Joshua Slive wrote:
> This may be my imagination, but won't this allow any module (or even cgi
> script) to set the Server header and override the default one. Do we want
> this? (I'm undecided, but it is a significant change from previous
> behavior.)
I will change this to detect whether a pr
"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> Please note that this is -why- 1.3 is in R-T-C mode, unlike 2.0. Please
> post patches first for that tree. Sorry if it appeared that Aaron, Cliff
> and I didn't follow that protocol, since the review happened off-list
> in security@ due to the nature of the patc
20 matches
Mail list logo
