Re: 2.2 roadmap with respect to APR was Re: [NOTICE] CVS to SVN migration complete

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:36:25PM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > To be clear, I'm perfectly happy with merging to trunk in Allen's changes > > *once* completed and reviewed and moving trunk to 2.x if need be - but I > > Nevertheless, the questio

Reverse Proxies, REMOTE_ADDR spoofing patch

I've been playing around with using Apache 2 as a facade proxy behind which I'm hiding around 80 Apache 1.3 and Apache 2 instances. The back end servers are running mainly PHP content that I'm hosting for people and I want to get round the vulnerabilities that result from everything running as

Re: Reverse Proxies, REMOTE_ADDR spoofing patch

According to Andy: > I've patched 1.3.33 to provide a new boolean directive > ProxyFakeRemoteAddr which, when enabled, plucks the value of any > X-Forwarded-For header and populates REMOTE_ADDR with it. It also > supresses any attempt to set REMOTE_HOST. -1 for adding this to 1.3 (IIRC, we onc

Re: Reverse Proxies, REMOTE_ADDR spoofing patch

Lars Eilebrecht wrote: I've patched 1.3.33 to provide a new boolean directive ProxyFakeRemoteAddr which, when enabled, plucks the value of any X-Forwarded-For header and populates REMOTE_ADDR with it. It also supresses any attempt to set REMOTE_HOST. -1 for adding this to 1.3 (IIRC, we once dec

Re: OCSP Support #31383

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Matthieu Estrade wrote: > 2 to use another responder url than the one (if present) inside the > certificate. Very useful. > 1 to choose if you want verify or not the answer of responder (usefull > to do test) Ok. > I planned to add a directive to specify a different cert

Re: Reverse Proxies, REMOTE_ADDR spoofing patch

Lars Eilebrecht wrote: >I've patched 1.3.33 to provide a new boolean directive >ProxyFakeRemoteAddr which, when enabled, plucks the value of any >X-Forwarded-For header and populates REMOTE_ADDR with it. It also >supresses any attempt to set REMOTE_HOST. Isn't this what mod_rpaf does? -- VIKI

Re: Reverse Proxies, REMOTE_ADDR spoofing patch

Andrew Stribblehill wrote: Isn't this what mod_rpaf does? Apparently so - thanks Andrew :) I did spend longer unsuccessfully googling for that than I did writing the patch :)

Re: svn commit: r106229 - /httpd/site/branches/css-test

André Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Yoshiki Hayashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> ++1. I'm ready to help, too. I was playing with web site >> documentation to start providing translation of those pages >> and wondered why we haven't moved to CSS yet. > > Just wanted to let you know: I'v

PATCH: call aclocal for PCRE in buildconf

I found that the configure.in in recent releases of PCRE uses some autoconf macros that won't work unless aclocal is called first to produce a proper aclocal.m4: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL and AC_LIBTOOL_WIN32_DLL This buildconf patch fixes it for me (and works with both the new PCRE 5.0 and the old versi

Re: PATCH: call aclocal for PCRE in buildconf

* Brian Pane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I found that the configure.in in recent releases of PCRE uses some > autoconf macros that won't work unless aclocal is called first to > produce a proper aclocal.m4: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL and AC_LIBTOOL_WIN32_DLL > > This buildconf patch fixes it for me (and

Re: PCRE in 2.1/2.2

I volunteer to upgrade the copy of PCRE in httpd-2.1 to the latest version. I'll have a bit of time to work on this over the next few days. One question, though... I'd like to follow the vendor-branch approach outlined in the Subversion book, .

Re: PATCH: call aclocal for PCRE in buildconf

André Malo wrote: * Brian Pane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I found that the configure.in in recent releases of PCRE uses some autoconf macros that won't work unless aclocal is called first to produce a proper aclocal.m4: AC_PROG_LIBTOOL and AC_LIBTOOL_WIN32_DLL This buildconf patch fixes it for me (

Re: moving docs build tools to httpd

On 24.11.2004, at 18:28, André Malo wrote: * Yoshiki Hayashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After conversion is done, sending out instruction of how to update existing checkout would be nice. I believe you can just "svn switch" to the new location but I'm not sure. yep. just `svn switch new-url Did yo

Re: RFC for a Perchild-like-MPM

> I think the only part missing right now is the ability to compile > Apache to function as a FastCGI client, and accept requests over > FastCGI instead of HTTP. That can be a full version of Apache, > or a slimmed-down version (e.g. with no input/output filters). It is a great idea use FastCGI's p

Re: PATCH: call aclocal for PCRE in buildconf

--On Friday, November 26, 2004 12:05 AM + Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually aclocal belongs to automake. Correct. But then, it would be a weird system where autoconf/automake/libtool are not installed as a group, so I guess that's still ok. No, it's not. I purposely don't instal

apxs/apr-config/apu-config on Win32

I've been testing out some perl scripts to emulate apxs/apr-config/apu-config on Win32 (under Apache/2.0.x), and was wondering if there was any interest in developing them within the appropriate httpd/apr sources. At present they can be installed via a perl script http://perl.apache.org/dist/wi

Re: PATCH: call aclocal for PCRE in buildconf

* Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --On Friday, November 26, 2004 12:05 AM + Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Actually aclocal belongs to automake. > > Correct. > > > But then, it would be a weird system where autoconf/automake/libtool are > > not installed as a

Re: moving docs build tools to httpd

* Erik Abele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 24.11.2004, at 18:28, André Malo wrote: > > > * Yoshiki Hayashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> After conversion is done, sending out instruction of how to > >> update existing checkout would be nice. I believe you can > >> just "svn switch" to th

Re: PATCH: call aclocal for PCRE in buildconf

On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 08:05:53AM +0100, Andr Malo wrote: > oops. (Who the hell named that tool aclocal?!) It was probably named that way to promote confusion. Sane people would have called it amlocal instead. *shrug* > > No, it's not. I purposely don't install automake. > > I'd be really i

Re: PATCH: call aclocal for PCRE in buildconf

* Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 08:05:53AM +0100, Andr Malo wrote: > > > oops. (Who the hell named that tool aclocal?!) > > It was probably named that way to promote confusion. Sane people would have > called it amlocal instead. *shrug* > > > > No, it'