The following supporters have open issues assigned to them in this collector
(http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope).
Assigned and Open
Brian
- "ZPT not being processed with text/vnd.wap.wml mime type",
[Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/968
Caseman
- "ZCTextUndex
On 4/20/05, Sidnei da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Supposedly you would not be able to access that part of the site until
> you authenticate against it. Isn't that the case now?
Assuming it requires authentication, yes.
The main problem here is that Internet Explorer doesn't allow you to
log
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Tue Apr 19 11:01:01 2005 UTC to Wed Apr 20 11:01:01 2005 UTC.
There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Unit Tests.
Tests passed OK
---
Subject: OK : Zope-2_6-branch Python-2.1.3 : Linux
From: Zope Unit Tests
Date: Tue Apr 19 22:49:37 EDT 2
Lennart Regebro wrote:
Supposedly you would not be able to access that part of the site until
you authenticate against it. Isn't that the case now?
Assuming it requires authentication, yes.
And if it doesn't require authentication?
Also, what determines whether it requires authentication? authorisa
Tres Seaver wrote:
-1 without extensive testing on a branch, especially including heavy
testing of basic-auth-only scenarios.
Tinkering with the machinery here after a couple of hours
head-scratching ignores the fact that the machinery *works* in the teeth
of all the weird behavior built into t
Hi there,
In Zope auth we have this cool (and I'm being serious here!) idea that
authentication and authorisation are seperate things. So I'm confused as
to why an authorization failure returns a 401 and not a 403.
My understanding is as follows:
1. anonymous request comes in for url that is not
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 02:15:30PM +0100, Chris Withers wrote:
| Hi there,
|
| In Zope auth we have this cool (and I'm being serious here!) idea that
| authentication and authorisation are seperate things. So I'm confused as
| to why an authorization failure returns a 401 and not a 403.
|
| My
On 4/20/05, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lennart Regebro wrote:
> >>Supposedly you would not be able to access that part of the site until
> >>you authenticate against it. Isn't that the case now?
> >
> > Assuming it requires authentication, yes.
>
> And if it doesn't require authent
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 06:22:10PM +0200, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On 4/20/05, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Lennart Regebro wrote:
> > >>Supposedly you would not be able to access that part of the site until
> > >>you authenticate against it. Isn't that the case now?
> > >
> > > Ass