On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:22:36 -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: rederpj
> Date: Fri Jul 27 14:22:36 2007
> New Revision: 560386
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=560386
> Log:
> Add backport request for nested groups patch.
In view of the substantial authnz reworking in /t
I'm quite certain that it applies since I developed the code on 2.2.4
before forward porting it to trunk.
There are as few minor changes, but they mostly amount to putting the
same code in slightly different places.
Nick Kew wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:22:36 -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:58:27 -0400
"Paul J. Reder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm quite certain that it applies since I developed the code on 2.2.4
> before forward porting it to trunk.
>
> There are as few minor changes, but they mostly amount to putting the
> same code in slightly different p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi group,
Sorry to bother here, but I didn't get any reply from modules-dev, so this
might be a slightly more
complicated issue. If anyone would like to help with this off-list, that would
be great to avoid
pestering here :)
My connection-level i
It is, in fact, possible to do what you are trying to do but before
anyone tells you how, in public, do you mind expaining, in public,
what the heck you are actually trying to do here?
What's in the posted body and why does it need to become
the "secret (encrypted) request"?
In a message date
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It is, in fact, possible to do what you are trying to do but before
> anyone tells you how, in public, do you mind expaining, in public,
> what the heck you are actually trying to do here?
Hi :)
I'm writing a draft on Ope
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:51:41 -0300
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi group,
>
> Sorry to bother here, but I didn't get any reply from modules-dev, so
> this might be a slightly more complicated issue. If anyone would l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Nick Kew wrote:
> It's your question that I find hard to decipher.
Yes, I'm sorry. Let me try and explain.
For example, If I read this request with my connection input filter (which I
was able to do):
=- cut here -=
POST /HTTP_OPENPGP_DECRYPT
Hos
> I wrote about this last week, on dev@httpd.apache.org, with a thread whose
subject
> was "Introducing mod_openpgp":
Yes, I saw that.
It was your new question about "Posting" a "Secret" request and then trying
to re-dump it into Apache as a "Trojan Horse" that had me confused.
Is this th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is this the way you actually plan on implementing "OpenPGP"?
Not really. I have many paths. One of them is almost fully avoiding pgp from
inside a browsers
plugin, and just write a proxy that implements the required funct
Arturo 'Buanzo' Busleiman wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
>>> It's your question that I find hard to decipher.
>
> Yes, I'm sorry. Let me try and explain.
>
> For example, If I read this request with my connection input filter (which I
> was able to do):
>
> =- cut here -=
> POST /HTTP_OPENPGP_DECRYPT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> FWIW, this isn't a valid HTTP request. The bare minimum was
> POST /HTTP_OPENPGP_DECRYPT HTTP/1.1 (the last bit was not optional.)
You're right. I used the one from an original idea, this is what I'm inputting
Apache
> That's why I thought bringing the concept over here was a good idea.
> I'm finally getting some constructive criticism!
It's an interesting idea. There have been years of work put into making
HTTP and Apache "extensible" for ideas just such as this one and regardless
of what anyone thinks of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> That's why I thought bringing the concept over here was a good idea.
>> I'm finally getting some constructive criticism!
> It's an interesting idea. There have been years of work put into making
> HTTP and Apache "extensible" for ideas just such as this one and regardles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> People can get kinda short and blunt over here but be advised that the
> only bad discussion about technology is not having one at all and,
> in general, the "constructive criticism" is all well-intentioned.
I know, I real
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> +1
:)
> Actually, I gave the wrong RFC - take a look at
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2817
> Simply using an 'Upgrade: PGP' header would be enough to make the transition.
[...]
> same hooks to interpret the Upgrade hea
On 7/17/07, Chris Haumesser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is the above still an accurate statement of attachment handling status in
> > mod_mbox? If so, does anyone know what it would take to add this
> > functionality? Anyone interested in helping us for a modest bounty?
This should be fixed i
Hi Marc,
This is not the correct list for you question. This list is for
developers of the apache http server only.
Use to following to get a bit more info of what is going on:
RewriteLog /var/log/rewrite.log
RewriteLogLevel 2
The `stuff` you are talking about are regular expressions a
> This should be fixed in r560612.
>
> The change has been deployed to mail-archives.apache.org; so the JPEG image
> in
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-axis-user/200704.mbox/raw/%3C46
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2
Awesome -- Thanks!!
19 matches
Mail list logo
