Re: [PATCH] don't send Server header field as set by CGI or module
Jeff Trawick wrote: Attached is an alternate, which matches 1.3 AFAICT. I need to test it with proxy to make sure proxyreq is set properly, but I have at least confirmed that a CGI script can't decide what Server we should report. Any concerns before I test further and commit? In concept +1. Regards, Graham -- - [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's a moon over Bourbon Street tonight...
Re: [PATCH] don't send Server header field as set by CGI or module
Graham Leggett wrote: Jeff Trawick wrote: Attached is an alternate, which matches 1.3 AFAICT. I need to test it with proxy to make sure proxyreq is set properly, but I have at least confirmed that a CGI script can't decide what Server we should report. Any concerns before I test further and commit? In concept +1. Thanks for the feedback. I tried to see an indication that the more liberal acceptance of Server was desired. Its good to see for sure that it wasn't.
Re: [PATCH] don't send Server header field as set by CGI or module
Jeff Trawick wrote: Thanks for the feedback. I tried to see an indication that the more liberal acceptance of Server was desired. Its good to see for sure that it wasn't. The problem of Server being overwritten during proxy operation has been logged as an HTTP compliance violation in bugzilla. I tried to apply a patch, but it broke things - my brain is almost swiss cheese right now, so I cannot comment on the patch working, but if it fixes the compliance error then I am +1 for that. Regards, Graham -- - [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's a moon over Bourbon Street tonight...
