On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 01:10:09PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Well if you see only one way to fix it, yes,
The only viable way anyway. I've been looking at this for a few months, since I first reported to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (still waiting on a response) and have tried to construct the logic on the authz side, but it would require quite a complex ACL compiler and even then would not solve the problem of Deny statements being added while content was already cached. > I'm guessing it all remains at an impass for the next few years. > You've claimed this is a bug, I claim you propose an enhancement. But > I see merit in the desire to restrict content based on physical authz > topography (not on user based authnz which is already defined by http > caching headers.) Also I suspect that there are 'other ways', not > simply one way. Great! > In any case, there's nothing in STATUS and I was prepared to see where > the discussion last ended, but didn't have time today to start > trawling through the maillist archives. Try adding an entry in STATUS > when an issue needs to be addressed. I'll add one now. -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
