Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
Did anybody notice that the ftp proxy seems to be broken?
Any request returns 503 and the reason seems to be that
ap_proxy_connect_backend is called with conn->addr=NULL
from ap_proxy_ftp_handler.
Fix is trivial.
I'll commit the patch as soon as SVN gets up :).
Mladen.
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:52:05 +0200, Andreas Steinmetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Did anybody notice that the ftp proxy seems to be broken?
I can't get it to work either.
There also seems to be a slight regression in ProxyPass support for
ftp. The following directive is accepted
--On Wednesday, December 8, 2004 11:45 PM -0500 Rodent of Unusual Size
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/11/06 08:28:24 $]
Ken: FWIW, httpd has switched to Subversion (and APR has too). Is it possib
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, hutuworm wrote:
> "2.0.52 : released September 28, 2005 as GA. "
> should be
> "2.0.52 : released September 28, 2004 as GA. "
LOL. :)
"There's been a new breakthrough in home video marketing. Instant
cassettes. They're out in stores before the movie is finished."
I'll
"2.0.52 : released September 28, 2005 as GA. "
should be
"2.0.52 : released September 28, 2004 as GA. "
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 23:45:11 -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
> Last modified at [$Date:
APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/11/06 08:28:24 $]
Release [NOTE that only Alpha/Beta releases occur in 2.1 development]:
2.1.1 : Proposed roll on 11/14/2004 (around/after Hackathon).
Justin volunteers as
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/11/10 18:05:46 $]
Release:
2.0.53 : in development
2.0.52 : released September 28, 2005 as GA.
2.0.51 : released September 15, 2004 as GA.
2.0.50 : released June 30, 2004 a
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/10/30 13:20:38 $]
Release:
1.3.34-dev: In development.
1.3.33: Tagged October 27, 2004
1.3.32: Tagged October 18, 2004. Not formally released.
1.3.31: Tagged May 7, 2004. Announc
Seems reasonable. I would have to take a closer look at it though.
Brad
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, December 08, 2004 10:56:10 AM >>>
At 10:10 AM 12/8/2004, Brad Nicholes wrote:
> FYI, if anybody else is interesting is testing the TLS upgrade
>functionality, there is a small test utilit
--On Wednesday, December 8, 2004 8:53 PM + Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I can't convince myself it would solve the general case, though: if both
r-> and c->output_filters to happen point to the *same* filter,
modifying the filter chain without knowledge of r-> (which is the
problem) w
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:22:49AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Wednesday, December 8, 2004 9:33 AM + Joe Orton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:14:40PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
> >> OK, now that you have enabled upgrades for anything other than
> >>
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:52:05 +0200, Andreas Steinmetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did anybody notice that the ftp proxy seems to be broken?
>
> Any request returns 503 and the reason seems to be that
> ap_proxy_connect_backend is called with conn->addr=NULL
> from ap_proxy_ftp_handler.
I can't g
At 10:10 AM 12/8/2004, Brad Nicholes wrote:
> FYI, if anybody else is interesting is testing the TLS upgrade
>functionality, there is a small test utility
>(http://www.apache.org/~bnicholes/tlsupgrade.c) that can be used to send
>an upgradeable GET or POST request.
It seems to me we can make ab.c
--On Wednesday, December 8, 2004 9:33 AM + Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:14:40PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
OK, now that you have enabled upgrades for anything other than
OPTIONS, I see the problem. Even though there is a content-length
included in the h
FYI, if anybody else is interesting is testing the TLS upgrade
functionality, there is a small test utility
(http://www.apache.org/~bnicholes/tlsupgrade.c) that can be used to send
an upgradeable GET or POST request.
Brad
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, December 08, 2004 9:01:22 AM >>>
It ma
It may be a bit of a hack, but it seems reasonable to me. The best
part is that it works.
+1
Brad
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, December 08, 2004 2:33:48 AM >>>
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:14:40PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>OK, now that you have enabled upgrades for anything other tha
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 21:53:07 +0100, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> here's a patch against httpd-2.0.49 which fixes the broken
> configure script.
we don't maintain configure; it is autogenerated; any fixes need to be
in the input files; it looks like the portion you had to modify co
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 05:14:40PM -0700, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>OK, now that you have enabled upgrades for anything other than
> OPTIONS, I see the problem. Even though there is a content-length
> included in the header, you are saying that the header is being sent
> encrypted but the content
18 matches
Mail list logo
