On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 9:48 AM Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
> On 2/3/21 1:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> >
> > I think we can remove this test/block completely now that
>
> Agreed. I think we should just decline and leave it to further possible
> protocol handlers to deal
> with these URL's. And if all
On 2/3/21 1:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 8:50 PM wrote:
>>
>> Author: rpluem
>> Date: Tue Feb 2 19:50:14 2021
>> New Revision: 1886141
>>
> []
>> if (!scheme || u[0] != '/' || u[1] != '/' || u[2] == '\0') {
>> -if (!scheme && (u = strchr(url, ':')) && (u -
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 8:50 PM wrote:
>
> Author: rpluem
> Date: Tue Feb 2 19:50:14 2021
> New Revision: 1886141
>
[]
> if (!scheme || u[0] != '/' || u[1] != '/' || u[2] == '\0') {
> -if (!scheme && (u = strchr(url, ':')) && (u - url) > 14) {
> -ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK,
