"Tony Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>
>> The thing is, I don't want to bloat Wget with obscure options to turn
>> off even more obscure (and *very* rarely needed) optimizations. Wget
>> has enough command-line options as it is. If there are cases where
>> the optimiza
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> The thing is, I don't want to bloat Wget with obscure options to turn
> off even more obscure (and *very* rarely needed) optimizations. Wget
> has enough command-line options as it is. If there are cases where
> the optimization doesn't work, I'd rather omit it completely.
"Tony Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's possible that the server responding to the IP address forwards
> connections to multiple backend servers. These backend servers may
> or may not know about all the resources that the gateway server know
> about.
That is precisely the case I'm worrie
Herold Heiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Windows MSVC binary at http://xoomer.virgilio.it/hherold
Thanks. I assume this means that it compiled without a hitch.
Anyone else with a report? Should I release 1.9.1 now?
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Assume that Wget has retrieved a document from the host A, which
> hasn't closed the connection in accordance with Wget's keep-alive
> request.
>
> Then Wget needs to connect to host B, which is really the same as A
> because the provider uses DNS-based virtual hosts. Is it
Windows MSVC binary at http://xoomer.virgilio.it/hherold
Heiko
--
-- PREVINET S.p.A. www.previnet.it
-- Heiko Herold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- +39-041-5907073 ph
-- +39-041-5907472 fax
> -Original Message-
> From: Hrvoje Niksic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 8:4
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> I'm already treating SSL and non-SSL connections as incompatible. But I'm
> curious as to why you say name-based virtual hosting isn't possible over
> SSL?
To quote the Apache docs: "Name-based virtual hosting cannot be used with SSL
secure servers bec
"Kempston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah, i understabd that, but lftp hadles it fine even without
> specifying any additional option ;)
But then lftp is hammering servers when real unauthorized entry
occurs, no?
> I`m sure you can work something out
Well, I'm satisfied with what Wget does
The problem is that the server replies with "login incorrect", which
normally means that authorization has failed and that further retries
would be pointless. Other than having a natural language parser
built-in, Wget cannot know that the authorization is in fact correct,
but that the server happe
Here is debug output
:/FTPD# wget ftp://ftp.dcn-asu.ru/pub/windows/update/winxp/xpsp2-1224.exe -d
DEBUG output created by Wget 1.8.1 on linux-gnu.
--13:25:55-- ftp://ftp.dcn-asu.ru/pub/windows/upd
Daniel Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes it does. It certainly makes things more complicated, as you
> would have to exclude such a connection from the checks (at least I
> think you want that, I don't think you'll be forced to do so). And
> you also need to exclude HTTPS-connections from
> From: Hrvoje Niksic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To get the stable sources that have this bug fixed, you might want to
> check out the head of the wget-1_9 branch in CVS. Heiko, how about
> creating a bugfix 1.9 release for Windows?
No problem with that, but wouldn't a dot release be better ?
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> One thing that might break (but that Wget doesn't yet support anyway) is
> NTLM, which seems to authorize the *connections* individual connections.
Yes it does. It certainly makes things more complicated, as you would have to
exclude such a connection fr
13 matches
Mail list logo
