Re: [Boston.pm] cgi file permissions

2003-03-02 Thread Drew Taylor
Oops. I sent this only to Joel so I'm forwarding it here as well. Drew Taylor said: > As someone else mentioned, you need to use cgiwrap. I also happen to > have an account w/ pair. :-) The trick w/ cgiwrap is that it ALWAYS > looks in the system cgi-bin (~/public_html/cgi-bin) directory. So you

Re: [Boston.pm] Social Meeting Thursday, March 6

2003-03-02 Thread Chris Devers
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Ronald J Kimball wrote: > Boston.pm will be having a social meeting on Thursday, March 6, at Boston > Beer Works (Fenway). We'll start at 7pm and end when everybody leaves. > > Boston Beer Works is at 61 Brookline Avenue in Boston, across from Fenway > park. > >

[Boston.pm] Social Meeting Thursday, March 6

2003-03-02 Thread Ronald J Kimball
Boston.pm will be having a social meeting on Thursday, March 6, at Boston Beer Works (Fenway). We'll start at 7pm and end when everybody leaves. Boston Beer Works is at 61 Brookline Avenue in Boston, across from Fenway park.

Re: [Boston.pm] cgi file permissions

2003-03-02 Thread John Tobey
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:26:40PM -0500, Bob Rogers wrote: >From: John Tobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 10:42:29 -0500 > >The clean and safe solution would be to run your own copy of the web >server (if allowed) or configure the existing server for "suExec" (if >

Re: [Boston.pm] cgi file permissions

2003-03-02 Thread Jason Gloudon
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:19:17AM -0500, Joel Gwynn wrote: > I'm more concerned about other pair users being able to access the file. > Currently, the file is stored above the document root, but it has to be > readable by the cgi script, hence the user nobody in group www. You could run the cgi

Re: [Boston.pm] cgi file permissions

2003-03-02 Thread John Tobey
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:19:17AM -0500, Joel Gwynn wrote: > I'm more concerned about other pair users being able to access the file. > Currently, the file is stored above the document root, but it has to be > readable by the cgi script, hence the user nobody in group www. Without help from a

RE: [Boston.pm] cgi file permissions

2003-03-02 Thread Joel Gwynn
I'm more concerned about other pair users being able to access the file. Currently, the file is stored above the document root, but it has to be readable by the cgi script, hence the user nobody in group www. > -Original Message- > From: Wizard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday,

Re: [Boston.pm] cgi file permissions

2003-03-02 Thread Erik Price
On Sunday, March 2, 2003, at 09:18 AM, Wizard wrote: I've got a script which reads a config file to get a database username and password, among other things. What should the permissions be so that the cgi script running on the web server can read the file, but random users on the system

Re: [Boston.pm] cgi file permissions

2003-03-02 Thread Erik Price
On Sunday, March 2, 2003, at 09:13 AM, Joel Gwynn wrote: I've got a script which reads a config file to get a database username and password, among other things. What should the permissions be so that the cgi script running on the web server can read the file, but random users on the system

RE: [Boston.pm] cgi file permissions

2003-03-02 Thread Wizard
> I've got a script which reads a config file to get a database username and > password, among other things. What should the permissions be so that the > cgi script running on the web server can read the file, but > random users on > the system can't? Is this the best way for the script to get >

[Boston.pm] cgi file permissions

2003-03-02 Thread Joel Gwynn
Yet another opportunity to display my ignorance :) I've got a script which reads a config file to get a database username and password, among other things. What should the permissions be so that the cgi script running on the web server can read the file, but random users on the system can't? Is

Re: [Boston.pm] Re: "Slightly" off topic from Hartford PM Group

2003-03-02 Thread Erik Price
On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 10:55 AM, Gyepi SAM wrote: I used the 'Content-Disposition' header [1] for a long time, but eventually gave up and simply appended the filename to the url because some versions of IE ignore the the headers altogether. I think it was a workaround to fix the