Hi,
the OpenSSL team will pretty soon release 0.9.8 as stable release.
However, currently 2.0.54 cannot be built with 0.9.8beta6, as
a pem.h-definition has changed. The OpenSSL-team considers this
renaming as a bug correction, so compilation of mod_ssl will
go on to fail.
OpenSSL 0.9.8 will intr
Georg,
thank you for the patch. It looks appropriate, to me, so I'll
commit to 2.1.x and (if I can get two more +1's, folks???) I'll also
apply to 2.0.55 before we roll in the next day.
Bill
At 07:32 AM 7/5/2005, Georg v. Zezschwitz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>the OpenSSL team will pretty soon release 0.
I've run into this with some "broken" browsers. Basically, they
require a non-null SessionID in the SSL transaction. If, for whatever
reason, we disable the external SSL Session Cache, these
browsers reports errors when connecting to the SSL vhost.
This adds a new argument to SSLSessionCache whic
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I've run into this with some "broken" browsers. Basically, they
require a non-null SessionID in the SSL transaction. If, for whatever
reason, we disable the external SSL Session Cache, these
browsers reports errors when connecting to the SSL vhost.
This adds a new argument
On Jul 5, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I've run into this with some "broken" browsers. Basically, they
require a non-null SessionID in the SSL transaction. If, for whatever
reason, we disable the external SSL Session Cache, these
browsers reports errors when conn
RFC2616 says TRACE doesn't accept a body.
Patches I'd committed to 1.3.x and working on 2.1.x (to port
to 2.0.x) enforce this with TraceEnable On.
But what about a 0-byte body?
Content-Length: 0
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
0
both imply a body, with no body to follow.
Should this case be disal
On 7/5/05, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RFC2616 says TRACE doesn't accept a body.
>
> Patches I'd committed to 1.3.x and working on 2.1.x (to port
> to 2.0.x) enforce this with TraceEnable On.
>
> But what about a 0-byte body?
I think it is a body. Yes, it is only 0 bytes lo
The attached patch restricts T-E responses to 'chunked', and
discards C-L in that case, setting the response to nocache
as a just-in-case.
It also adds a note in case anyone wants to use connection
keep-alive, warning of dire circumstances.
Comments/votes?
Bill
Attached is the mystery patch [omitted from the last note - whoops].
IMHO we should apply the same to ap_http_filter() in 2.1's
http_filters.c
Bill
At 10:35 PM 7/5/2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>The attached patch restricts T-E responses to 'chunked', and
>discards C-L in that case, setting