On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 11:33 -0500, Karl Wright wrote:
> Hi Oleg et al,
>
> One ManifoldCF user has an unusual requirement for basic auth that
> requires
> the auth header to be sent pre-emptively, not as a consequence of
> receiving
> a 401 response. He proposes the following patch for
Am 2019-01-03 um 22:10 schrieb Karl Wright:
Well, I don't actually see anything wrong with the idea of sending the auth
header right up front and not requiring a whole extra back-and-forth to
authorize. NTLM needs that but basic auth doesn't in theory. What is
wrong with what they are doing?
Well, I don't actually see anything wrong with the idea of sending the auth
header right up front and not requiring a whole extra back-and-forth to
authorize. NTLM needs that but basic auth doesn't in theory. What is
wrong with what they are doing? Do you have a spec I can present to them?
Am 2019-01-03 um 17:33 schrieb Karl Wright:
Hi Oleg et al,
One ManifoldCF user has an unusual requirement for basic auth that requires
the auth header to be sent pre-emptively, not as a consequence of receiving
a 401 response. He proposes the following patch for ManifoldCF, but I
wonder
Hi Oleg et al,
One ManifoldCF user has an unusual requirement for basic auth that requires
the auth header to be sent pre-emptively, not as a consequence of receiving
a 401 response. He proposes the following patch for ManifoldCF, but I
wonder whether there's a better way to do this with
