Did you check Metux MPM?
It works by passing socket discriptor to worker process.
The project is on beta status but works fine.
Please see the following pages.
http://www.metux.de/mpm/
http://www.sannes.org/metuxmpm/
If you are interested in extending this MPM, join in the
project. I'm sure some
Nifty! I had some compilation problems involving regex, so in the
attached patch I use ap_regex.h and change some defines. Hope this
doesn't break anything.
that was a good idea, ap_regex.h was implictly getting included for me.
The other bug I partially fixed was, strstr in smtp_protocol.
On Freebsd 4.10, Apache/2.0.52 - during starttup when there is a zero byte
__db.ssl_cache sitting in /var/run:
drwxr-xr-x 4 root wheel 1536 Jul 19 07:47 .
drwxr-xr-x 20 root wheel 512 Sep 17 2004 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel0 Jul 19 07:41 __db.ssl_s
Yeah, no kidding. We haven't made any decisions yet. Decisions
are what happens when people vote on releases or changes. Did one
of those go by and I didn't notice? Nope.
Yup - branching 2.1.x - 2.2.x - trunk.
No, branching is part of the task of an RM. It is not a decision
of the group,
On Jul 18, 2005, at 12:30 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
NTLM HTTP Authentication
(and possibly other connection-oriented
HTTP authentication and authorization protocols)
is insecure by design
Yep, no shit -- that's what the Micros
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 01:02:56AM -0700, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> with config:
>
> SSLSessionCache dbm:/var/run/ssl_scache
> SSLSessionCacheTimeout 300
> SSLMutexfile:/var/run/ssl_mutex
Using s/shmcb/dbm/ and "SSLMutex default" is IMO the best
--On July 18, 2005 1:19:54 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some of us, trawick, orton and myself come to mind, are still up
for supporting our current users. As it is, backports aren't
reviewed, or committed once they are (I even split STATUS just to
call out approve
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Michal Kosek wrote:
[ replying as I read - some points here which you address later ]
It would be great to see feedback from the authors of the original
perchild here - I'd guess you'll have insights into the difficulties
Michal is likely to face.
> System consists of 3 part
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 12:51 PM 7/18/2005, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
Or you could simply keep working on trunk like everyone else
and let releases be made when a tarball gets three +1s.
Version numbers are cheap. Telling the entire group to stop while
you work on the next big patch is ex
> Hi Rian,
Useful start: you seem to have dealt with the core SMTP stuff:-)
> I like how the code is done. I am not sure a hook for each smtp command
> is the good solution. Adding a new command here is very simple and quick.
That's my feeling too. But I'm happy with the way Rian has done it -
On Jul 19, 2005, at 6:51 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
the problem i found when i did my poc is when there is in the
command,
different destination email. It's difficult here to keep the
virtualHost
scheme.
It would be nice to keep a conf file like
ServerName mail.bla.com
SmtpUserMap mail.bl
-1
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:14:51AM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
> > In presented example, client1 has specified Host: header and has been
> > redirected to worker1, while client2 hasn't specified it yet, so it is
> > still connected to the dispatcher. The diagram is created with
> > assumption that sock
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 04:05:06PM +0900, Hideki Noma wrote:
> Did you check Metux MPM?
> It works by passing socket discriptor to worker process.
Yes, I looked at Metux MPM, but it also passes descriptors in the same
way as perchild, from process handling one vhost to another, and I don't
like it
Rian Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think this requires some more thought considering different
> smtp connections and server requirements. The main drawback to
> sub- requesting each rcpt to is that we have two different
> handlers trying to read data from the socket. Is this problem
> so
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Joe Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Randy Kobes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Should AT_skip() print "ok ...", rather than "not ok ..."?
> >> If I change this to do so, then the tests are reported as
> >> all pass; however, the message t
Joe Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rian Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I think this requires some more thought considering different
>> smtp connections and server requirements. The main drawback to
>> sub- requesting each rcpt to is that we have two different
>> handlers trying t
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 07:43:35AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> I'm so confused while trying to draw the line between
>
> alternate RFC-compliant philosophy
> fixes for actual RFC violations
> fixes for security issues
>
> I think CHANGES should be crystal clear on what change has a security
> im
> Hmm. That sounds like a good idea, maybe there already is a hook
> defined that could deal with this, I'll look into it.
I could also start work on a mod_smtpd_dnsbl if the mentors feel that is
worthwhile? This would look up a connecting IP address against a blacklist
and return a descriptive
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Jem Berkes wrote:
> > Hmm. That sounds like a good idea, maybe there already is a hook
> > defined that could deal with this, I'll look into it.
>
> I could also start work on a mod_smtpd_dnsbl if the mentors feel that is
> worthwhile? This would look up a connecting IP addres
Please test & vote on rc4 for tomorrow's release of:
http://people.apache.org/~joes/libapreq2-2.06-dev-rc4.tar.gz
From userland mod_perl 2.01, perl 5.8.6, httpd 2.0.54, linux 2.6.12, all
tests pass, +1.
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> Before I dive into this - does this ring a bell with anyone ?
With help from Paul - seems to be a bug in BerklyDB where it scans through
possible backup index files before opening the real file - and then gets
confused; and gets its nickers in
At 10:07 AM 7/19/2005, Joe Orton wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 07:43:35AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> I'm so confused while trying to draw the line between
>>
>> alternate RFC-compliant philosophy
Roy spelled it out, it's not in the RFC but if there is -any- way
we can use C-L, let's do it.
Greg and a few others voiced interest in moving from null-term
strings to counted strings for a future version of Apache.
This was too broad a scope change to make it into 2.0, of course,
and was dropped on the floor for the time being.
I'm wondering today; what metadata interests us in an ap_st
Paul? Joe? Jeff? Someone?
This is the only showstopper to a 1.3.34 candidate today,
since 1.3.x/src/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c rejects T-E
for proxy request bodies.
Bill
At 03:26 PM 7/15/2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>folks, the same patch Paul/Joe worked out for 2.1, then 2.0,
>should s
Rian Hunter wrote:
On Jul 19, 2005, at 6:51 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
the problem i found when i did my poc is when there is in the command,
different destination email. It's difficult here to keep the
virtualHost
scheme.
It would be nice to keep a conf file like
ServerName mail.bla.com
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:59:14PM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
> Paul? Joe? Jeff? Someone?
>
> This is the only showstopper to a 1.3.34 candidate today,
> since 1.3.x/src/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c rejects T-E
> for proxy request bodies.
Since the 1.3 proxy already rejects such requests what d
At 04:11 PM 7/19/2005, Joe Orton wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:59:14PM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
>> Paul? Joe? Jeff? Someone?
>>
>> This is the only showstopper to a 1.3.34 candidate today,
>> since 1.3.x/src/modules/proxy/mod_proxy.c rejects T-E
>> for proxy request bodies.
>
>Since th
> But is anyone dealing with outgoing SMTP via a proxy_smtp in the
> mod_proxy framework? I think you were discussing that a short while
> ago, weren't you? I think that might be higher priority.
I hesitated on that because I did not understand at all how mod_proxy fits
into this. i.e. I don't
Wouldn't something like
ServerName www.apache.org:81
ServerAlias httpd.apache.org internal_dev
ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ErrorLog logs/error.log
TransferLog logs/access.log
SMTP On # like with mod_dav (dav on)
so reusing existing command, then this main an user of www.apache.org
lets call
Parin Shah wrote:
you should be using a mix of
# requests
last access time
cost of reproducing the request.
Just to double check, we would insert entry into the 'refresh queue'
only if the page is requested and the page is soon-to-be-expired. once
it is in the queue we would use above parame
I trying to build the standalone helper program generate_index that
the catchup-archive scriptneeds. This program does not seem to be
made by the makefile and the build-dso errors out looking for lucene4c
headers. Any ideas?
What (or who) generates the build-dso scripts for
modules? What are they used for? If it is used why
not use make? I am fighting with mod_mbox in
particular but I'm also interested in a more
generalized answer if someone has one.
What (or who) generates the build-dso scripts for
modules? What are they used for? If it is used why
not use make? I am fighting with mod_mbox in
particular but I'm also interested in a more
generalized answer if someone has one.
Wouldn't something like
ServerName www.apache.org:81
ServerAlias httpd.apache.org internal_dev
ServerAdmin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ErrorLog logs/error.log
TransferLog logs/access.log
SMTP On # like with mod_dav (dav on)
so reusing existing command, then
On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:55 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Greg and a few others voiced interest in moving from null-term
strings to counted strings for a future version of Apache.
This was too broad a scope change to make it into 2.0, of course,
and was dropped on the floor for the time being.
Hi All,
We are now almost at consesus about this new mod-cache-requester
module's mechanism. and now I believe its good time to start
implementing the module.
But before I could do that, I need some help from you guys.
- I am now comfortable with mod-cache, mod-mem-cache, cache_storage.c,
cache_
At 03:57 AM 7/19/2005, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>On Jul 18, 2005, at 12:30 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>>NTLM HTTP Authentication
>>> (and possibly other connection-oriented
>>> HTTP authentication and authorization protocols)
>>> is in
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 11:58:21AM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
> Thanks Paul, you just collided with the refactoring of 2.1.x proxy.
Is this refactoring complete? Apart from the compiler warnings, a bunch
of the t/ssl/proxy.t tests have started failing with the trunk code.
With worker, the serv
* Brian Pane wrote:
> And although I like the performance benefits of the pool memory
> allocators, I remember how tricky it was to debug some of the
> pool and bucket lifetime problems that we encountered during
> the development of 2.0 (especially in filters). All things considered,
> I don't t
40 matches
Mail list logo
