* Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fair warning:
>
> As the first stage of a simplification of the default config in 2.1
> (only!), I'm going to remove all the html files under
> httpd-2.1/docs/docroot/ and replace them with an index.html file
> containing only It works!
>
> I'm goin
I agree with the originator of this. I have had to deal with way too many
complaints from users re: "Why when I go to x does it think I have a
webserver on my computer?"
Just a suggestion that I merged into my RPM builds. Don't put an
index.html file at all. Put test.html and make sure Indexes are
Hi There,
Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> The website you have accessed is running but has not yet been...
The website you have accessed is running but has no content at the moment.
or:
It works!But i am sorry, there is no content at the moment. Try again
later.
Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
[..cut..]
Your umask setting can further restrict the permissions specified by
Apache, but it cannot be used to make the permissions more liberal.
What permissions do you suggest for the directories?
If mod_disk_cache still stores authentication creden
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:25:51 +0200, Rüdiger Plüm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I noticed that the permissions of the directories created by mod_disk_cache are set to
700 whereas the permissions of the files storing the header information respect the
umask and thus have mor
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Point... How about "The website you have accessed has not yet been
Or:
The website you have accessed is running but has not yet been...
that speaks to both.
> configured. Please try to access this website again later."? It's
> directed at end users,
Joshua Slive wrote:
No, because this is a very confusing and ambiguous statement from the
perspective of a random web surfer who stumbles on the page. Their
response is "Why are you saying I installed a webserver on my computer?
This must be some kind of security breach. Call in the marines!"
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
As the first stage of a simplification of the default config in 2.1
(only!), I'm going to remove all the html files under
httpd-2.1/docs/docroot/ and replace them with an index.html file containing
only It works!
Is it possible to say
Joshua Slive wrote:
As the first stage of a simplification of the default config in 2.1
(only!), I'm going to remove all the html files under
httpd-2.1/docs/docroot/ and replace them with an index.html file
containing only It works!
Is it possible to say a little bit more than just "it works"? M
Fair warning:
As the first stage of a simplification of the default config in 2.1
(only!), I'm going to remove all the html files under
httpd-2.1/docs/docroot/ and replace them with an index.html file
containing only It works!
I'm going to do this because:
1. The old welcome page is a constant
Paul Querna wrote:
Graham
Leggett wrote:
This block of code definitely belongs in
apr-util, you are 100% right - but moving it to apr-util is a
completely separate issue to fixing the bug as committed.
Then this 'bug' should be submitted as a bug in APR-Util, not httpd.
Not rea
Paul Querna wrote:
This block of code definitely belongs in apr-util, you are 100% right
- but moving it to apr-util is a completely separate issue to fixing
the bug as committed.
Then this 'bug' should be submitted as a bug in APR-Util, not httpd.
Definitely not - like I said, the issue of the
Graham Leggett wrote:
This block of code definitely belongs in apr-util, you are 100% right -
but moving it to apr-util is a completely separate issue to fixing the
bug as committed.
Then this 'bug' should be submitted as a bug in APR-Util, not httpd.
So far this code will only be moved in httpd
Paul Querna wrote:
mod_auth_ldap: Handle the inconsistent way in which the MS LDAP
library handles special characters.
It seems like this is something that belongs in APR-Util. Wouldn't any
application that needed to escape characters in an LDAP filter end up
copying this code?
This block o
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:25:51 +0200, Rüdiger Plüm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I noticed that the permissions of the directories created by mod_disk_cache are set to
700 whereas the permissions of the files storing the header information respect the
umask and thus have more
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:25:51 +0200, Rüdiger Plüm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I noticed that the permissions of the directories created by mod_disk_cache are set
> to
> 700 whereas the permissions of the files storing the header information respect the
> umask and thus have more permi
Well and good, just don't lose the fix from 2.1 or 2.0 in the process.
Otherwise, I don't care where the fix goes.
--
Jess Holle
Paul Querna wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
minfrin 2004/10/04 16:43:20
Modified:.CHANGES
modules/aaa mod_authnz_ldap.c
Log:
mod_a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
minfrin 2004/10/04 16:43:20
Modified:.CHANGES
modules/aaa mod_authnz_ldap.c
Log:
mod_auth_ldap: Handle the inconsistent way in which the MS LDAP
library handles special characters.
It seems like this is something that belongs in APR-Ut
Hi all,
I noticed that the permissions of the directories created by mod_disk_cache are set to
700 whereas the permissions of the files storing the header information respect the
umask and thus have more permissions (at least in my case with my umask).
If this behaviour is intended for security rea
Paul Querna wrote:
Rüdiger Plüm wrote:
Hi all,
as some people here are already talking about Apache 2.2, just a short
question:
Will there ever be a productive version of Apache 2.1 or is it planned to
rename the current Apache 2.1-dev into Apache 2.2.0 as soon as Apache
2.1-dev is
regarded feat
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 06:38 PM 10/4/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I have some issues with the proposed patch in that it moves some configure logic that really belongs in apr-util over to httpd: i.e. configuration of apr-iconv should be done by apr-util not by httpd, httpd should only be
21 matches
Mail list logo
