Laurent Perez wrote:
For example, Content-type works, but Date or Server do not. Is
"%{Server}o" the right syntax to log the "Server:" header, or is it
broken ? An ethereal trace shows a value for the Server: header.
Server and Date are added later and cannot be overridden, but it probably
mak
Graham Leggett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 6/4/2006 2:42 AM >>>
>Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>>> Should we define our own macro which uses LDAP_SECURITY_ERROR or
the
>>> more detailed logic, to keep the mainline code cleaner and support
>>> reuse in other paths
>>
>> I thought about that and couldn't real
Hi
The Format String "%{Foobar}o" (The contents of Foobar: header line(s)
in the reply.) shown at
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_log_config.html does not work
for every reply header sent by the server. Instead, it give "-".
For example, Content-type works, but Date or Server do not. Is
That's great! Thanks.
,
Josh.
> -Original Message-
> From: Brad Nicholes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 5:21 PM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Authentication Bug? (Patch?)
>
> There has already been a bug submitted on this one
> PR#39529. I have
On 6/5/06, Joachim Zobel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 01.06.2006, 16:36 +0200 schrieb Plüm, Rüdiger, VF
EITO:
> As far as I remember there had been also a discussion on who "owns" a brigade.
> So who has to call / should not call apr_brigade_destroy / apr_brigade_cleanup
> in the
Am Donnerstag, den 01.06.2006, 16:36 +0200 schrieb Plüm, Rüdiger, VF
EITO:
> As far as I remember there had been also a discussion on who "owns" a brigade.
> So who has to call / should not call apr_brigade_destroy / apr_brigade_cleanup
> in the filter chain. I think rules for this would be also us
