Rainer,
It has actually been quite a while since I have been on this list. I did
most of the initial Netware port of Apache. Apache for Netware uses its own
implementation of Winsock as the socket layer. This is the reason why the make
files specify not to use the standard sockets. The N
>>> On 7/13/2009 at 3:31 PM, in message
<1404e5910907131431m42ec4cffwc08caf273b71f...@mail.gmail.com>, Eric Covener
wrote:
> PR#47521 points out that when mod_authnz_ldap has some fatal LDAP
> connectivity error, it doesn't allow other AuthBasicProviders to have
> a shot at checking the userid.
>
>>> On 3/26/2009 at 12:07 PM, in message
, Jeff Trawick
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>> >>> On 3/26/2009 at 11:55 AM, in message
>> <49cb6d2b020000ac0003c...@lucius.provo.novell.com>, "Brad Nicholes"
>
>>> On 3/26/2009 at 11:55 AM, in message
<49cb6d2b02ac0003c...@lucius.provo.novell.com>, "Brad Nicholes"
wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/2009 at 11:14 AM, in message <49cbb7d9.80...@rowe-clan.net>,
>>>> "William
> A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2009 at 11:14 AM, in message <49cbb7d9.80...@rowe-clan.net>,
>>> "William
A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> traw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Votes:
>>
>> [+1] yank BeOS MPM from trunk
>> [+1] yank OS/2 MPM from trunk
>
> and for completeness
>[+1] yank Netware from trunk
>
> Netware is 'do
>>> On 12/6/2008 at 9:30 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ruediger
Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.11 are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Your votes please;
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd-2.2.11 as GA
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdig
>>> On 12/4/2008 at 1:30 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi --
>
> Eric Covener wrote:
>
>> I had meant iif containers are used, I'd like their name to
>> communicate the "require" or "reject" part while the authz providers
>> would be "match"-like (
>>> On 11/1/2008 at 10:21 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Author: chrisd
> Date: Sat Nov 1 21:21:48 2008
> New Revision: 709839
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=709839&view=rev
> Log:
> Remove mod_authn_default and mod_authz_default.
>
> Note: I've atte
>>> On 7/11/2008 at 5:30 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roy T. Fielding"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>>>>> On 7/11/2008 at 12:01 PM, in message
>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTEC
>>> On 7/11/2008 at 12:01 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Shane
Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the link and description Brad. It makes sense now. Explains
> why the default config was giving me a 403. The 'Require all denied'
> was being inherited from the root direct
See inline comments below.
Brad
>>> On 7/11/2008 at 12:26 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Shane
Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried to build Apache from trunk tonight and noticed that this patch
> broke something. I'm getting a 403 error when trying to browse to a
> clean ins
Done. New packages with the NOTICE file added have been reposted.
Brad
>>> On 6/23/2008 at 8:26 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brad
Nicholes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, I will get this fixed and repost the binary packages
>
> Brad
>
Thanks, I will get this fixed and repost the binary packages
Brad
>>> On 6/22/2008 at 9:28 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roy T. Fielding"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Netware binary packages for 2.0.x and 2.2.x failed to include
> the required NOTICE files. They have been moved to the
>>> On 5/2/2008 at 11:54 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>> So what I am really trying to say is that intra-block logic and
>> inter-block logic as far as merging goes, are tied together
>>> On 6/10/2008 at 6:50 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Jagielski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Test tarballs for Apache httpd 2.2.9 are available at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Your votes please;
>
> +/-1
> [ ] Release httpd-2.2.9 as GA
>
>
>
> DO NOT b
>>> On 4/18/2008 at 8:53 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>> I could go along with switching the default merging rule from OR to AND,
>> even within a dir block. The reason why it is
Trying to build mod_auth_form.c just produces link errors. I can see where the
optional function is imported as ap_session_set_fn() but then later referenced
as ap_session_set(). The code should be changed to use one or the other right?
Brad
>>> On 4/14/2008 at 3:29 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>> This is where it starts to go wrong for me. Where it gets confusing
>> for somebody who is trying to figure ou
>>> On 4/15/2008 at 5:49 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William
A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I think what Paul is suggesting (he will for sure correct me
>> if I'm wrong) is that it's better to at least have some semblance
>> of a schedule than not, and b
>>> On 4/14/2008 at 12:21 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>> I'm not real excited about adding a new authz directive. Authn and
>> authz are already very complex and adding a n
>>> On 4/12/2008 at 11:20 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul
Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is something I have been thinking about for awhile, and discussed
> with a few other http server people before.
>
> I think that for the 'stable' branch, we should move to time based releas
>>> On 4/10/2008 at 2:00 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ruediger
Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10.04.2008 18:11, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2008 at 12:12 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Ruediger
>> Pluem &
>>> On 4/9/2008 at 11:08 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Darroch wrote:
>
>>Here's another thought: for people doing mass virtual hosting,
>> and who let their customers put authn/z directives into .htaccess
>> files with "AllowOverride Auth
>>> On 4/10/2008 at 12:12 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ruediger
Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10.04.2008 00:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Author: bnicholes Date: Wed Apr 9 15:49:31 2008 New Revision:
646582
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=646582&view=rev Log: Move the
>>> On 4/8/2008 at 10:41 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>>
>>Reject ip 127.0.0.1//Or any other Require directive
>>
>>
>>
>>...
>
>>> On 4/4/2008 at 5:43 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul J.
Reder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps it would make more sense to provide this as an explicit value rather
> than
> On vs. Off and set the default to the previous behavior. Perhaps something
> like:
>
> AuthzMergeRules [A
>>> On 4/4/2008 at 4:33 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>> So here was the thinking behind it when AuthzMergeRules was introduced.
>> Maybe there is still a bug here that needs
>>> On 4/4/2008 at 11:37 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>> I've been working with the 2.4 authn/z stuff a bit lately and
>>> what I keep tripping over is that the default authorization merge rule
>>> uses OR logic. F
>>> On 4/4/2008 at 1:20 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William
A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Darroch wrote:
>>
>> I've been working with the 2.4 authn/z stuff a bit lately and
>> what I keep tripping over is that the default authorization merge rule
>> uses OR logic. Fo
>>> On 4/3/2008 at 8:23 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Plüm,
Rüdiger, VF-Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> Von: Jim Jagielski
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 3. April 2008 16:07
>> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Betreff: 2.4 (Was: Re: Configuration Issues to
>>> On 4/3/2008 at 8:06 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Jagielski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another good topic of discussion:
>
> Time for a 2.4 release? I wouldn't mind pushing that along
> and get some of the feature-set of 2.4 out before we do too
> much ripping with the inevitable d
>>> On 1/23/2008 at 7:25 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul J.
Reder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>
>> On 01/23/2008 07:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Author: rederpj
>>> Date: Wed Jan 23 10:14:41 2008
>>> New Revision: 614605
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.
>>> On 1/11/2008 at 7:09 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Jagielski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am calling for a release VOTE on the above releases of
> Apache HTTP Server (1.3.41, 2.0.63 and 2.2.8).
>
> Pre-release tarballs of Apache HTTP Server 1.3.41, 2.0.63
> and 2.2.8 are available
>>> On 1/7/2008 at 4:56 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rolf Banting"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> My immediate aim is to test Isaac's UDP support patch with mod_perl - I
>> want to make a case for apache as a viable alternative for our service
>> platform and udp support is essential. If
>>> On 1/4/2008 at 1:00 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Jagielski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apache HTTP Server fans,
>
> The latest versions of all 3 variants of Apache HTTP Server (1.3.40,
> 2.0.62 and 2.2.7) have been tagged. The test tarballs are available
> for testing and feedback
>>> On 1/4/2008 at 1:17 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William
A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad Nicholes wrote:
>>
>> Since I don't know how the perl test suite works, I couldn't
>> really tell you how the s
>>> On 1/4/2008 at 10:12 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rolf Banting"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I want to build mod_perl 2 against httpd trunk but
> I've encountered a few road-blocks. The one that has held me up
> recently is to do with the removal of ap_requires from the http
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 2:33 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Eric Covener"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
>
> mod_ldap has it's own server_config struct defined in
> httpd/include/util_ldap.c -- does this location implicitly make the
> server config structure part of the API?
>
> I
>>> On 11/8/2007 at 1:10 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Eric Covener"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any thoughts on how to contrast uldap_connection_close() vs
> uldap_connection_cleanup()?
>
> uldap_connection_close() tears down the minimal amount, leaving a
> bound connection floating aroun
>>> On 10/1/2007 at 4:52 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William
A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> Give that some thought :)
>
> One thing I'm pondering is a 2.3.0 alpha in the near future.
>
> If only to give the "we stay back at version n.x-1" cr
>>> On 9/4/2007 at 3:29 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Jagielski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Available for your testing pleasure, 3, count 'em, 3
> Apache HTTP Server release candidate tarballs, located,
> as expected at:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> This vote will ru
>>> On 8/30/2007 at 4:36 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Eric Covener"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/30/07, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> On 8/29/2007 at 7:51 PM, in message
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> On 8/29/2007 at 7:51 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Eric Covener"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In 2.2.x If authz_XXX are one of dbm, owner, or groupfile they track
> the list of requires and decline if they don't see any they're
> responsible for -- this isn't a crap shoot of module or
>>> On 8/29/2007 at 3:14 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Eric Covener"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/29/07, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The only real reason why you have to set LDAP to
>> non-authoritative when using LDA
>>> On 8/29/2007 at 8:28 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Eric Covener"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mod_authnz_ldap in 2.2.x doesn't track whether or not it has seen any
> applicable 'Require ldap-*' entries in the requires list, and also
> doesn't explicitly accept valid-user (despite a commn
>>> On 8/6/2007 at 12:28 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Justin
Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/6/07, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ummm... These didn't have 3 +1 votes.
>>
>> So why were they applied and committed??
>
> I think for platform-specific code we've bee
>>> On 5/2/2007 at 1:47 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joshua Slive"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/2/07, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, that's where I mentioned that things might look a little confusi
>>> On 5/2/2007 at 11:47 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joshua Slive"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Author: bnicholes
>> Date: Wed May 2 09:31:39 2007
>> New Revision: 534533
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=534533
>>> On 4/30/2007 at 10:13 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Patrick Welche
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 03:44:08PM -0600, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>> >>> On 4/27/2007 at 11:30 AM, in message
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Patrick We
>>> On 4/30/2007 at 9:54 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joshua Slive"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/27/07, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> It's beginning to look like Order, Allow, Deny, Satisfy can't b
>>> On 4/27/2007 at 11:30 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Patrick Welche
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, bug or configuration error?
>
> Using httpd trunk 529626, of Apr 19 2007, I tried a FAQ configuration
> with the new authentication framework:
>
>
> AuthType basic
> AuthN
>>> On 4/26/2007 at 4:16 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Guenter Knauf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>> Wouldn't it be better to focus on 2.2.x and onwards? OK, there's a lot
>> of people still running 1.3 and 2.0, but that doesn't mean that we
>> have to make it run on all of them...
>
>>
>>> On 4/19/2007 at 11:36 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Guenter Knauf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Brad,
> I've just found that we have same bug in the AP13 build system as what I
> fixed long time ago with the AP2x build system already; in each
> NWGNUmakefile.mak you can read:
> #
> #
>>> On 3/9/2007 at 11:22 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Guenter Knauf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Brad,
> can you please commit the attached makefiles to the 'experimental' modules
> folder,
> and patch the existing NWGNUmakefile in order to pick up the new ones?
> Since its no code chan
(revision 515593)
>> +++ apr- util/include/apr_ldap.h.in(working copy)
>> @@ - 93,6 +93,15 @@
>> #define LDAPS_PORT 636 /* ldaps:/// default LDAP over TLS port */
>> #endif
>>
>> +/*
>> + * For ldap function calls that input a size limit on the number o
Looks good, I think I like your first suggestion better, putting the #ifdef in
apr_ldap.h.in. This seems a little more straight forward rather than hiding
the value in configure.
Brad
>>> On 3/1/2007 at 7:07 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David Jones"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How abo
) Or some complicated(?) conf magic that would involve getting a handle and
> then calling ldap_set_option(ldap, LDAP_OPT_SIZELIMIT, -1); and setting
> APR_LDAP_DEFAULT_SIZELIMIT to -1 or 0 accordingly.
>
>
> On 2/23/07, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
DAP_DEFAULT_SIZELIMIT
>
> On 2/22/07, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 2/22/2007 at 7:12 AM, in message
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David
>> Jones"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > How about someth
>>> On 2/22/2007 at 7:12 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David Jones"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about something alone these lines? It assumes there is nobody with
> LDAP_DEFAULT_LIMIT undefined AND LDAP_NO_LIMIT defined, but still supports
> and wishes to use the -1 value.
>
> --- util
>>> On 2/20/2007 at 11:32 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jeff Trawick"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/20/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Author: bnicholes
>> Date: Tue Feb 20 08:23:19 2007
>> New Revision: 509629
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=5096
>>> On 2/19/2007 at 9:29 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jeff Trawick"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/15/07, David Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Currently util_ldap.c has a hard coded -1 as the search limit value (meaning
>> infinite/no limit) on ldap_search_ext_s() calls. Some platf
>>> On 1/22/2007 at 11:45 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Fenlason,
Josh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm running into a problem with mod_ldap on Windows. When I try to
> authenticate without passing in a username, I get a 500 server error.
> Since the browser doesn't get back a 401, it cach
>>> On 1/20/2007 at 8:05 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Guenter Knauf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Brad,
> I have just created a patch which changes a couple of NWGNU* files in order
> to make it possible to specify another basedir during a 'make install' than
> using the hardcoded 'Apach
>>> On 1/6/2007 at 12:41 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William
A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
> contain the following tarballs for approval
>
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
> httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.
>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2006 at 1:00 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Johanna Bromberg Craig
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've addressed the feedback I received on my patch from Brad Nicholes
> as follows:
>
> I've
>>> On 12/11/2006 at 12:36 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Johanna Bromberg Craig
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I've addressed the last rounds of comments to my patch to
> mod_authnz_ldap. I haven't heard anything for a week, so I'm
> wondering, can someone please review these chan
>>> On 11/25/2006 at 4:37 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Piotr Wadas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cite from
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_authnz_ldap.html
>
> "The authn_ldap authentication provider can be enabled through the
> AuthBasicProvider directive using the ldap value.
>>> On 11/7/2006 at 1:07 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Johanna Bromberg Craig
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've addressed the feedback I received on my patch from Brad Nicholes
> as follows:
>
> I've restored AuthLDAPGroupAttribute
>>> On 10/10/2006 at 8:58 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Eric Covener"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/10/06, Javier Sagrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, i can write my modules, based on modules that i know will have a
>> "conflict" with mine using the "if ..."
>> but that is a little
So it sounds like there are two questions being asked. First, what non-ldap
usages are there for authnAlias and second why doesn't the configuration below
work?
I'll answer the second question first. Given the configuration block below,
I don't know why it doesn't work. I just retest
>>> On 9/1/2006 at 1:25 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"William A.
Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Project Committee Members...
>
> Adopt [EMAIL PROTECTED],
+1
>>> On 8/1/2006 at 5:34 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joshua
Slive"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/1/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Author: bnicholes
>> Date: Tue Aug 1 15:54:38 2006
>> New Revision: 427780
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=427780&view=rev
>>> On 8/3/2006 at 4:50 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris
Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi --
>
>>Some time ago, I proposed this large patchset (better described,
>> I think, by the message referenced by the second link below):
>>
>>
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-httpd
>>> On 8/2/2006 at 3:39 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ruediger
Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 08/02/2006 11:00 PM, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> No, the default is to merge authz rules. At least that is how I understood
>
>>> On 8/2/2006 at 1:38 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ruediger Pluem
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 08/02/2006 12:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Author: bnicholes
>> Date: Tue Aug 1 15:54:38 2006
>> New Revision: 427780
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=427780&view=rev
>
>>> On 8/2/2006 at 10:53 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason
Keltz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad Nicholes wrote:
>>>>> On 8/2/2006 at 9:01 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Jason Keltz
>>
>> Understand that I have no
>>> On 8/2/2006 at 9:01 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason Keltz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I apologize in advance if this is not the right forum for this type
of
> question -- if so, please accept my apology and let me know where I
> might address this problem...
>
> -
>
> The cur
>>> On 7/28/2006 at 5:06 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ruediger
Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 07/29/2006 12:30 AM, Brad Nicholes wrote:
>>There is a new concept (directive) that has been added to the
> authorization (access control)
There is a new concept (directive) that has been added to the authorization
(access control) portion of the web server. This new concept is "reject".
Basically what this directive does is allow you to specify conditions by which
access or authorization is denied. The question I have is how
>>> On 7/27/2006 at 12:37 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"William
A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chinese firedrill time folks.
>
> There is a vulnerability affecting mod_rewrite which this release
addresses.
> See the recent commit activity for detail. Need your votes on the
foll
>>> On 7/26/2006 at 9:11 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ruediger
Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 9:02 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Well, I think that the following patch in mod_authz_core.c fixes
the
> problem that you are looking at:
>>
>> @@ -62
>>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 9:02 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having added the following to my virtual host
>
>
> reject ip 127.0.0.1
>
>
> results in a 401 response and the following entries in the error_log
>
> [Mon Jul 24 16:56:03 2006]
>>>> 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
>>> r
>>> On 6/3/2006 at 5:45 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jeff
Trawick"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/2/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Author: bnicholes
>> Date: Fri Jun 2 15:01:53 2006
>> New Revision: 411306
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=411306&view=rev
27;t defined,
then
> include my patch. Thanks.
> ,
> Josh.
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Brad Nicholes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 12:38 PM
>> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Authentication Bug? (Patch?)
>>
>>
Which LDAP client library are you linking with and what version is
it. The problem is that your client library apparently doesn't support
the LDAP_SECURITY_ERROR macro. This macro basically does what your
patch is doing except that it looks at the complete range of possible
security related fa
>>> On 5/14/2006 at 7:34 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Please test and vote on releasing Apache httpd 1.3.36
>
> Download from:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Changes:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/CHANGES_1.3
>
> MD5s:
> MD5 (apach
>>> On 4/24/2006 at 12:40:58 pm, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Colm MacCarthaigh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> O.k., for the last time, hopefully :) A candidate for 2.0.58 is
> available for testing and voting at;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> The MD5sums are;
>
> ac732a8b3e
>>> On 4/21/2006 at 10:35:23 pm, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please test and vote on releasing httpd 2.2.2, bundling APR and
APR-Util
> 1.2.7.
>
> Download from:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Changes:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/CHAN
>>> On 4/19/2006 at 10:59:48 am, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Colm MacCarthaigh
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Candidate tarballs for 2.0.57 are now available for testing/voting
at;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> This doesn't include a changed notice-of-license text though, wh
>>> On 4/16/2006 at 2:53:24 pm, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There are some 2.0.56 candidate tarballs now at;
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> available for review/voting.
>
> Major apologies to wrowe for toe-stepping here, I'd missed some
> communi
>>> On 4/3/2006 at 11:38:28 am, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Querna wrote:
>> To resolve the problems we have with calling apu_version from httpd,
we
>> have three main options:
>>
>> [ ] Remove the new code that outputted the versions.
>>> On 4/3/2006 at 8:54:29 am, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/1/2006 at 12:28 pm, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul
> Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from:
>> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>> On 4/1/2006 at 12:28 pm, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul
Querna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2.2.1, embedding APR 1.2.6 and APR-Util 1.2.6, is available from:
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> Please Test and Vote on releasing 2.2.1 as GA.
>
> MD5s:
> f330230636926d08872d84343b08f
>>> On 3/24/2006 at 2:56:01 am, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I would like to enhance this module to be able to match the username
in
> more than one attribut in an "OR" condition.
>
> Currently, this module uses the AuthLDAPURL:
>
> AuthLDAPURL
>
l
> {>>> On 3/19/2006 at 8:40:56 am, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> mod_authz_core contains a fiendishly complex data structure, the
>'authz_provider_list' (which is actually more like a tree than a list),
>which is used to implement the concept of nested
>/ sections
>>> Graham Leggett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3/18/2006 3:58:42 am >>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=386776&view=rev
> Log:
> LDAPConnectionTimeout and LDAPVerifyServerCert can be configured
> per-vhost
>
>We need to note in addition to this that not all LDAP SDK li
>>> On 3/17/2006 at 12:53 pm, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jeff
Trawick"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/17/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Author: bnicholes
>> Date: Fri Mar 17 11:26:27 2006
>> New Revision: 386698
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=386698&view=
>>> On 3/16/2006 at 7:01 pm, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jeff
Trawick"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=386477&view=rev
>> Log:
>> remove the race condition when creating the connection pool mute
>>> On 3/16/2006 at 11:34 am, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jeff
Trawick"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, Brad Nicholes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> On 3/16/2006 at 7:12 am, in message
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
1 - 100 of 528 matches
Mail list logo
