On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 08:31 AM, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 12:18 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
Well, than let's move it in. A quick overview of the last mails shows
the following votes:
justin +0 modules/pop3
jim +1 modules/experimental
bills -0 !modules/pop3
On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 12:18 AM, Erik Abele wrote:
Well, than let's move it in. A quick overview of the last mails shows
the following votes:
justin +0 modules/pop3
jim +1 modules/experimental
bills -0 !modules/pop3
willrowe -0 modules/experimental / +0 modules/pop / +1 for it's
curre
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> hmm, how is it? Is a fulfilled 2.0 backport vote sufficient to port
>> it back to 1.3 or would I need another voting?
>
> Is the change the same? Would the same patch apply to 2.0 as to 1.3?
> If so, then I think you'd be safe.
Exactly the same change and patch, a
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Erik Abele wrote:
Perhaps there is not much interest because it is somewhat 'hidden'?
IMHO mod_pop3 would gain more visibility and therefore perhaps a
better community when folded into httpd. Imagine windoze users:
they mostly rely on binary distributions and up to now there
Erik Abele wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps there is not much interest because it is somewhat 'hidden'? IMHO mod_pop3
>would gain more visibility and therefore perhaps a better community when folded into
>httpd. Imagine windoze users: they mostly rely on binary distributions and up to now
>there are just
What does mod_pop3 actually do? Provide some kind of POP3 server using the
Apache structure? If so, I'd be quite interested as a user (I mainly run
Apache 2 on Windows) but unfortunately my abilities don't extend to C, so I
couldn't offer development help.
However, I agree that if it were part of
Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
HI,
On Saturday, January 25, 2003, at 10:22 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Saturday, January 25, 2003 9:43 PM +0100 Harrie Hazewinkel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
3)Why for instance, could this not stay as a seperate module??
The case that can be made for folding i
--On Saturday, January 25, 2003 9:23 PM + Francis Daly
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+/* res_info is used when merging res_list */
+typedef struct res_info {
+int *range;
+apr_table_t *tab;
+} res_info;
I think this is the wrong data structure to be using here. A table
doesn't make a
HI,
On Saturday, January 25, 2003, at 10:22 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Saturday, January 25, 2003 9:43 PM +0100 Harrie Hazewinkel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
3)Why for instance, could this not stay as a seperate module??
The case that can be made for folding it in is that there is no
On Saturday, January 25, 2003, at 10:09 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 02:43 PM 1/25/2003, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
HI,
3)Why for instance, could this not stay as a seperate module??
If suddenly new modules are added that do are not for the
main purpose, I also know various other modules t
Heh, FWIW, PLEASE put this one in Apache 2 guys ;)
It's one feature I really miss from 1.3, I lose track of the hidden URLs I
have sometimes, without them showing up in the indexes :)
Cheers,
Chris Taylor - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The guy with the PS2 WebServer -
http://www.x-bb.org/chris.asc
-
Hi there,
another updated old patch, although this one was previously under a
different name (RevealSecretUrl, or something similar).
In an otherwise-accessible directory, I require authentication for the
file "thing.cgi". Currently, I can't advertise that under the the url
"thing". With this pat
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 09:23:04PM +, Francis Daly wrote:
Hi there,
> Part 2, with some optional extras, follows.
IndexResults: the optional extras.
(a) Allow a separate icon for unauthorized files.
(b) Hide some file details unauthorized clients don't need to see.
(c) document (a)
Built
Hi there,
updating some old patches to the recent release...
This one is "IndexResults", the real intention of which is to allow
files requiring authentication appear in autoindex'ed directory
listings.
If the docs patch below doesn't properly describe what it does, then I
need to rewrite that t
--On Saturday, January 25, 2003 9:43 PM +0100 Harrie Hazewinkel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
3)Why for instance, could this not stay as a seperate module??
The case that can be made for folding it in is that there is no
community currently around mod_pop3. If people were to step up and
be resp
At 02:43 PM 1/25/2003, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
>HI,
>
>3)Why for instance, could this not stay as a seperate module??
>If suddenly new modules are added that do are not for the
>main purpose, I also know various other modules that should
>be included.
By 'module' do you mean seperate CVS module (
HI,
1) Not commenting on specifics, but as a protocol module example
is it usefull. I used it also to make an IMAP protocol example and
(since there was no decent LICENCE for it) POP protocol. In order
to make this module more usefull, I believe it would be better to
add first a good message stor
* Günter Knauf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
> Hi,
> I can see that mod_log_config, mod_rewrite and mod_file_cache have it in;
> but where in the source tree is APR_INHERIT as set by apr_file_inherit_set()
>actually handled?
> A grep of the source tree does not find any application of this flag.
18 matches
Mail list logo
