Rainer,
It has actually been quite a while since I have been on this list. I did
most of the initial Netware port of Apache. Apache for Netware uses its own
implementation of Winsock as the socket layer. This is the reason why the make
files specify not to use the standard sockets. The
On 7/13/2009 at 3:31 PM, in message
1404e5910907131431m42ec4cffwc08caf273b71f...@mail.gmail.com, Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com wrote:
PR#47521 points out that when mod_authnz_ldap has some fatal LDAP
connectivity error, it doesn't allow other AuthBasicProviders to have
a shot at checking the
On 3/26/2009 at 11:14 AM, in message 49cbb7d9.80...@rowe-clan.net,
William
A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Votes:
[+1] yank BeOS MPM from trunk
[+1] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk
and for completeness
[+1] yank Netware from trunk
Netware is 'done' -
On 3/26/2009 at 11:55 AM, in message
49cb6d2b02ac0003c...@lucius.provo.novell.com, Brad Nicholes
bnicho...@novell.com wrote:
On 3/26/2009 at 11:14 AM, in message 49cbb7d9.80...@rowe-clan.net,
William
A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Votes:
[+1] yank
On 3/26/2009 at 12:07 PM, in message
cc67648e0903261107l1302f629k95494e01834c6...@mail.gmail.com, Jeff Trawick
traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Brad Nicholes bnicho...@novell.com wrote:
On 3/26/2009 at 11:55 AM, in message
49cb6d2b02ac0003c
On 12/6/2008 at 9:30 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ruediger
Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.11 are available at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Your votes please;
+/-1
[ ] Release httpd-2.2.11 as GA
Regards
Rüdiger
+1 NetWare
On 12/4/2008 at 1:30 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris
Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi --
Eric Covener wrote:
I had meant iif containers are used, I'd like their name to
communicate the require or reject part while the authz providers
would be match-like (because the Require on
On 11/1/2008 at 10:21 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: chrisd
Date: Sat Nov 1 21:21:48 2008
New Revision: 709839
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=709839view=rev
Log:
Remove mod_authn_default and mod_authz_default.
Note: I've attempted to work
On 7/11/2008 at 5:30 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Roy T. Fielding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 11, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Brad Nicholes wrote:
On 7/11/2008 at 12:01 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], David Shane
Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the link and description Brad
See inline comments below.
Brad
On 7/11/2008 at 12:26 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Shane
Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried to build Apache from trunk tonight and noticed that this patch
broke something. I'm getting a 403 error when trying to browse to a
clean install.
On 7/11/2008 at 12:01 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Shane
Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the link and description Brad. It makes sense now. Explains
why the default config was giving me a 403. The 'Require all denied'
was being inherited from the root directory
On 6/10/2008 at 6:50 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Jagielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.9 are available at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Your votes please;
+/-1
[ ] Release httpd-2.2.9 as GA
DO NOT begin distributing
On 4/18/2008 at 8:53 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris
Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I could go along with switching the default merging rule from OR to AND,
even within a dir block. The reason why it is OR today was basically
for backward compatibility
Trying to build mod_auth_form.c just produces link errors. I can see where the
optional function is imported as ap_session_set_fn() but then later referenced
as ap_session_set(). The code should be changed to use one or the other right?
Brad
On 4/14/2008 at 3:29 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris
Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Nicholes wrote:
This is where it starts to go wrong for me. Where it gets confusing
for somebody who is trying to figure out what the configuration
is doing is:
Directory /www/pages
On 4/15/2008 at 5:49 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William
A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I think what Paul is suggesting (he will for sure correct me
if I'm wrong) is that it's better to at least have some semblance
of a schedule than not, and by baselining
On 4/12/2008 at 11:20 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul
Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is something I have been thinking about for awhile, and discussed
with a few other http server people before.
I think that for the 'stable' branch, we should move to time based releases.
My
On 4/14/2008 at 12:21 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris
Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Nicholes wrote:
I'm not real excited about adding a new authz directive. Authn and
authz are already very complex and adding a new directive to the mix will
just help to confuse people even
On 4/10/2008 at 12:12 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ruediger
Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10.04.2008 00:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: bnicholes Date: Wed Apr 9 15:49:31 2008 New Revision:
646582
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=646582view=rev Log: Move the
On 4/9/2008 at 11:08 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris
Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Darroch wrote:
Here's another thought: for people doing mass virtual hosting,
and who let their customers put authn/z directives into .htaccess
files with AllowOverride AuthConfig, I would
On 4/10/2008 at 2:00 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ruediger
Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10.04.2008 18:11, Brad Nicholes wrote:
On 4/10/2008 at 12:12 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ruediger
Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10.04.2008 00:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author
On 4/8/2008 at 10:41 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris
Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Nicholes wrote:
Directory /www/pages
Reject ip 127.0.0.1//Or any other Require directive
/Directory
Directory /www/pages/whatever
...
/Directory
Since the /www
On 4/4/2008 at 4:33 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris
Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Nicholes wrote:
So here was the thinking behind it when AuthzMergeRules was introduced.
Maybe there is still a bug here that needs to be addressed.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox
On 4/4/2008 at 5:43 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul J.
Reder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it would make more sense to provide this as an explicit value rather
than
On vs. Off and set the default to the previous behavior. Perhaps something
like:
AuthzMergeRules [AND | OR |
On 4/4/2008 at 1:20 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William
A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Darroch wrote:
I've been working with the 2.4 authn/z stuff a bit lately and
what I keep tripping over is that the default authorization merge rule
uses OR logic. For example, if I
On 4/4/2008 at 11:37 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris
Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I've been working with the 2.4 authn/z stuff a bit lately and
what I keep tripping over is that the default authorization merge rule
uses OR logic. For example, if I
On 4/3/2008 at 8:06 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Jagielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another good topic of discussion:
Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along
and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too
much ripping with the inevitable delays
On 4/3/2008 at 8:23 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Plüm,
Rüdiger, VF-Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. April 2008 16:07
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to Address [was
On 1/23/2008 at 7:25 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul J.
Reder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 01/23/2008 07:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: rederpj
Date: Wed Jan 23 10:14:41 2008
New Revision: 614605
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=614605view=rev
On 1/11/2008 at 7:09 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Jagielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am calling for a release VOTE on the above releases of
Apache HTTP Server (1.3.41, 2.0.63 and 2.2.8).
Pre-release tarballs of Apache HTTP Server 1.3.41, 2.0.63
and 2.2.8 are available for
On 1/7/2008 at 4:56 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Rolf Banting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My immediate aim is to test Isaac's UDP support patch with mod_perl - I
want to make a case for apache as a viable alternative for our service
platform and udp support is essential. If I can get the
On 1/4/2008 at 10:12 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Rolf Banting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
I want to build mod_perl 2 against httpd trunk but
I've encountered a few road-blocks. The one that has held me up
recently is to do with the removal of ap_requires from the httpd
source
On 1/4/2008 at 1:00 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Jagielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apache HTTP Server fans,
The latest versions of all 3 variants of Apache HTTP Server (1.3.40,
2.0.62 and 2.2.7) have been tagged. The test tarballs are available
for testing and feedback at the
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 2:33 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric Covener
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
mod_ldap has it's own server_config struct defined in
httpd/include/util_ldap.c -- does this location implicitly make the
server config structure part of the API?
If So, what kind
On 10/1/2007 at 4:52 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William
A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Give that some thought :)
One thing I'm pondering is a 2.3.0 alpha in the near future.
If only to give the we stay back at version n.x-1 crowd something
to
On 9/4/2007 at 3:29 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Jagielski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
as expected at:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This vote will run through
On 8/29/2007 at 7:51 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric Covener
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In 2.2.x If authz_XXX are one of dbm, owner, or groupfile they track
the list of requires and decline if they don't see any they're
responsible for -- this isn't a crap shoot of module ordering in
On 8/29/2007 at 8:28 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric Covener
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mod_authnz_ldap in 2.2.x doesn't track whether or not it has seen any
applicable 'Require ldap-*' entries in the requires list, and also
doesn't explicitly accept valid-user (despite a commnt)
Other
On 8/29/2007 at 3:14 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric Covener
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/29/07, Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only real reason why you have to set LDAP to
non-authoritative when using LDAP authn only, is because LDAP
had to combine both authn and authz
On 8/6/2007 at 12:28 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Justin
Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/6/07, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ummm... These didn't have 3 +1 votes.
So why were they applied and committed??
I think for platform-specific code we've been okay with a
On 5/2/2007 at 11:47 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: bnicholes
Date: Wed May 2 09:31:39 2007
New Revision: 534533
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=534533
Log:
re-introduce
On 5/2/2007 at 1:47 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/2/07, Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, that's where I mentioned that things might look a little confusing.
There actually is a good reason to have both and yes some
On 4/30/2007 at 10:13 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Patrick Welche
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 03:44:08PM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote:
On 4/27/2007 at 11:30 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Patrick Welche
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Using httpd trunk 529626
On 4/30/2007 at 9:54 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/27/07, Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's beginning to look like Order, Allow, Deny, Satisfy can't be deprecated
after all. However I still think that there is a usefulness
On 4/27/2007 at 11:30 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Patrick Welche
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically, bug or configuration error?
Using httpd trunk 529626, of Apr 19 2007, I tried a FAQ configuration
with the new authentication framework:
Directory /usr/local/share/httpd/htdocs/learn
On 4/26/2007 at 4:16 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Guenter Knauf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Wouldn't it be better to focus on 2.2.x and onwards? OK, there's a lot
of people still running 1.3 and 2.0, but that doesn't mean that we
have to make it run on all of them...
I'm all for
On 4/19/2007 at 11:36 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Guenter Knauf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Brad,
I've just found that we have same bug in the AP13 build system as what I
fixed long time ago with the AP2x build system already; in each
NWGNUmakefile.mak you can read:
#
# These flags
On 3/9/2007 at 11:22 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Guenter Knauf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Brad,
can you please commit the attached makefiles to the 'experimental' modules
folder,
and patch the existing NWGNUmakefile in order to pick up the new ones?
Since its no code change probably
support for LDAP v2.0 toolkits.
On 3/2/07, Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks good, I think I like your first suggestion better, putting the
#ifdef in apr_ldap.h.in. This seems a little more straight forward rather
than hiding the value in configure.
Brad
On 3/1/2007 at 7:07
Looks good, I think I like your first suggestion better, putting the #ifdef in
apr_ldap.h.in. This seems a little more straight forward rather than hiding
the value in configure.
Brad
On 3/1/2007 at 7:07 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], David Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about:
of
keeping it in util_ldap.c
4) Or some complicated(?) conf magic that would involve getting a handle and
then calling ldap_set_option(ldap, LDAP_OPT_SIZELIMIT, -1); and setting
APR_LDAP_DEFAULT_SIZELIMIT to -1 or 0 accordingly.
On 2/23/07, Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What
What LDAP client SDK does z/OS use? (Novell, OpenLDAP, Netscape, Other???)
Brad
On 2/22/2007 at 12:52 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], David Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its the z/OS, has LDAP_NO_SIZELIMIT defined. Does not have nor support
LDAP_DEFAULT_SIZELIMIT
On 2/22/07, Brad
On 2/22/2007 at 7:12 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], David Jones
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about something alone these lines? It assumes there is nobody with
LDAP_DEFAULT_LIMIT undefined AND LDAP_NO_LIMIT defined, but still supports
and wishes to use the -1 value.
---
On 2/19/2007 at 9:29 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/15/07, David Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently util_ldap.c has a hard coded -1 as the search limit value (meaning
infinite/no limit) on ldap_search_ext_s() calls. Some platforms cannot
On 2/20/2007 at 11:32 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: bnicholes
Date: Tue Feb 20 08:23:19 2007
New Revision: 509629
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=509629
Log:
vote
On 1/20/2007 at 8:05 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Guenter Knauf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Brad,
I have just created a patch which changes a couple of NWGNU* files in order
to make it possible to specify another basedir during a 'make install' than
using the hardcoded 'Apache2'.
On 1/22/2007 at 11:45 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Fenlason,
Josh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running into a problem with mod_ldap on Windows. When I try to
authenticate without passing in a username, I get a 500 server error.
Since the browser doesn't get back a 401, it caches the
On 1/6/2007 at 12:41 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William
A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
contain the following tarballs for approval
httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
On Mon, Dec 4, 2006 at 1:00 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Johanna Bromberg Craig
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've addressed the feedback I received on my patch from Brad Nicholes
as follows:
I've reviewed all instances of util_ldap_compare() and
util_ldap_cache_comparedn
On 12/11/2006 at 12:36 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Johanna Bromberg Craig
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
I've addressed the last rounds of comments to my patch to
mod_authnz_ldap. I haven't heard anything for a week, so I'm
wondering, can someone please review these changes?
On 11/25/2006 at 4:37 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Piotr Wadas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cite from
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_authnz_ldap.html
The authn_ldap authentication provider can be enabled through the
AuthBasicProvider directive using the ldap value.
This
On 11/7/2006 at 1:07 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Johanna Bromberg Craig
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've addressed the feedback I received on my patch from Brad Nicholes
as follows:
I've restored AuthLDAPGroupAttribute to its former syntax and added a
new directive
On 10/10/2006 at 8:58 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric Covener
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/10/06, Javier Sagrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, i can write my modules, based on modules that i know will have a
conflict with mine using the if ...
but that is a little limited, i just find
So it sounds like there are two questions being asked. First, what non-ldap
usages are there for authnAlias and second why doesn't the configuration below
work?
I'll answer the second question first. Given the configuration block below,
I don't know why it doesn't work. I just
On 9/1/2006 at 1:25 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
William A.
Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Project Committee Members...
Adopt [EMAIL PROTECTED],
+1
On 8/3/2006 at 4:50 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris
Darroch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi --
Some time ago, I proposed this large patchset (better described,
I think, by the message referenced by the second link below):
On 8/1/2006 at 5:34 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Joshua
Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/1/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: bnicholes
Date: Tue Aug 1 15:54:38 2006
New Revision: 427780
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=427780view=rev
Log:
Converted the
On 8/2/2006 at 9:01 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jason Keltz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I apologize in advance if this is not the right forum for this type
of
question -- if so, please accept my apology and let me know where I
might address this problem...
-
The currently
On 8/2/2006 at 10:53 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jason
Keltz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Nicholes wrote:
On 8/2/2006 at 9:01 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jason Keltz
Understand that I have not looked at the auth_pam module so I don't
know exactly what all of the different
On 8/2/2006 at 1:38 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ruediger Pluem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/02/2006 12:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: bnicholes
Date: Tue Aug 1 15:54:38 2006
New Revision: 427780
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=427780view=rev
Log:
Converted the
On 8/2/2006 at 3:39 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ruediger
Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/02/2006 11:00 PM, Brad Nicholes wrote:
No, the default is to merge authz rules. At least that is how I understood
access control to be working by default in the past
On 7/27/2006 at 12:37 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
William
A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chinese firedrill time folks.
There is a vulnerability affecting mod_rewrite which this release
addresses.
See the recent commit activity for detail. Need your votes on the
following
in
On 7/26/2006 at 9:11 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ruediger
Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 9:02 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Well, I think that the following patch in mod_authz_core.c fixes
the
problem that you are looking at:
@@ -628,16 +633,25 @@
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 9:02 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having added the following to my virtual host
location /
reject ip 127.0.0.1
/location
results in a 401 response and the following entries in the error_log
[Mon Jul 24 16:56:03
Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/4/2006 2:42 AM
Brad Nicholes wrote:
Should we define our own macro which uses LDAP_SECURITY_ERROR or
the
more detailed logic, to keep the mainline code cleaner and support
reuse in other paths
I thought about that and couldn't really decide if we should
On 6/3/2006 at 5:45 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff
Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/2/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: bnicholes
Date: Fri Jun 2 15:01:53 2006
New Revision: 411306
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=411306view=rev
Log:
Fix a problem
Which LDAP client library are you linking with and what version is
it. The problem is that your client library apparently doesn't support
the LDAP_SECURITY_ERROR macro. This macro basically does what your
patch is doing except that it looks at the complete range of possible
security related
-
From: Brad Nicholes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 12:38 PM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: RE: Authentication Bug? (Patch?)
Which LDAP client library are you linking with and what
version is it. The problem is that your client library
apparently doesn't support
On 5/14/2006 at 7:34 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Please test and vote on releasing Apache httpd 1.3.36
Download from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Changes:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/CHANGES_1.3
MD5s:
MD5
On 4/24/2006 at 12:40:58 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Colm MacCarthaigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
O.k., for the last time, hopefully :) A candidate for 2.0.58 is
available for testing and voting at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
The MD5sums are;
On 4/21/2006 at 10:35:23 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please test and vote on releasing httpd 2.2.2, bundling APR and
APR-Util
1.2.7.
Download from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Changes:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/CHANGES_2.2
On 4/19/2006 at 10:59:48 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Colm MacCarthaigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting
at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, which
is a
On 4/16/2006 at 2:53:24 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are some 2.0.56 candidate tarballs now at;
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
available for review/voting.
Major apologies to wrowe for toe-stepping here, I'd missed some
communications and
On 4/1/2006 at 12:28 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul
Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please Test and Vote on releasing 2.2.1 as GA.
MD5s:
f330230636926d08872d84343b08fa16
On 4/3/2006 at 8:54:29 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/1/2006 at 12:28 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul
Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
Please Test
On 4/3/2006 at 11:38:28 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
To resolve the problems we have with calling apu_version from httpd,
we
have three main options:
[ ] Remove the new code that outputted the versions.
[ ] Make the
On 3/24/2006 at 2:56:01 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi everybody,
I would like to enhance this module to be able to match the username
in
more than one attribut in an OR condition.
Currently, this module uses the AuthLDAPURL:
AuthLDAPURL
{ On 3/19/2006 at 8:40:56 am, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
mod_authz_core contains a fiendishly complex data structure, the
'authz_provider_list' (which is actually more like a tree than a list),
which is used to implement the concept of nested
SatisfyOne/SatisfyAll
Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/18/2006 3:58:42 am
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=386776view=rev
Log:
LDAPConnectionTimeout and LDAPVerifyServerCert can be configured
per-vhost
We need to note in addition to this that not all LDAP SDK libraries
On 3/17/2006 at 12:53 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff
Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: bnicholes
Date: Fri Mar 17 11:26:27 2006
New Revision: 386698
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=386698view=rev
Log:
Fix the
On 3/16/2006 at 7:12 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff
Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/16/06, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03/16/2006 03:49 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 3/15/06, Brad Nicholes wrote:
That is really one pool globally but there is a mutex per
{ On 3/16/2006 at 9:19 am, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Max Bowsher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the expected level of source compatibility for authz modules
between 2.2 and 2.3?
I'm confused, as some parts of the authz framework on trunk seem to
be
attempting to allow some compatibility,
{ On 3/16/2006 at 10:26 am, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Max Bowsher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thankyou. In light of this clarification, I have a further question:
is
there any reason why mod_authz_default should not be folded into
mod_authz_core?
It could be, but it remains separate for
On 3/16/2006 at 11:34 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff
Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/16/06, Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/16/2006 at 7:12 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jeff
Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/16/06, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On 3/16/2006 at 7:01 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff
Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/16/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=386477view=rev
Log:
remove the race condition when creating the connection pool mutex.
Also
On 3/15/2006 at 2:34 pm, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff
Trawick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Plz forgive any misunderstanding, as well as my use of 2.0 function
names ;) Also, for being slow at learning what ldap stands for. I
know this code has been hashed over many many times over the last
On 3/9/2006 at 4:49:24 am, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Max Bowsher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
Found by the Coverity report, this one looks like a real bug:
check_provider_list has a if() branch to handle the passed-in
current_provider being NULL, but never sets it to
{ On 3/9/2006 at 10:15:33 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Max
Bowsher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(((
since the access control directives 'Allow/Deny' have been folded in
as
providers.
)))
^^^ This bit isn't true.
What do you mean? The actual directives are only supported in trunk
through
On 3/9/2006 at 10:37:53 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/9/06, Brad Nicholes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you mean? The actual directives are only supported in
trunk
through the compatibility module mod_access_compat. This module as
well
BTW, can we
{ On 3/3/2006 at 8:31:22 am, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Max Bowsher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LDAP is in a weird situation: there are 3 components: mod_auth_ldap,
mod_authn_ldap and mod_authz_ldap, despite the fact that the last two
don't exist as real modules at all.
The actual module names
1 - 100 of 476 matches
Mail list logo
