-
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Ok, but as far as I am concerned something like PHP, mod_dav, mod_perl,
etc. are also server implementation details that do not belong in this
header. Unless I misunderstood Roy's message. I don't see much of
At 10:06 PM 5/3/2002, you wrote:
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 06:08 PM 5/3/2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
On this note what do people think in making the 'default' install only
show the
major version (ie.. Apache 2.0) instead of showing everything?
-0 here
All,
The following patch, inline and attached because of possible line-wrapping,
has the prefork MPM announce itself in the Server: header of all responses.
Having the MPM identify itself would provide insight in who is using Apache
in which configuration. It would allow groups like netstat to
Damn...that's a bonk on the head. It probably should do that huh?
On Fri, 2002-05-03 at 16:30, Sander Temme wrote:
All,
The following patch, inline and attached because of possible
line-wrapping,
has the prefork MPM announce itself in the Server: header of all
responses.
Having the
I do not believe that the Server string should be used to describe
implementation details of the server software. I know we already
do that, over my objections.
Roy
I do not believe that the Server string should be used to describe
implementation details of the server software. I know we already
do that, over my objections.
This can be manipulated using the ServerTokens directive; the patch I
submitted subjects itself to that setting.
S.
--
Covalent
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I do not believe that the Server string should be used to describe
implementation details of the server software. I know we already
do that, over my objections.
FWIW, I agree with Roy on this one.
--Cliff
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Ok, but where should this information go then? Apache has definitely
benefitted by having this information available. Some sort of
X-SERVER-INFO: header then?
What I meant was I don't think the MPM should be announced to the client.
What possible
Ok, but as far as I am concerned something like PHP, mod_dav, mod_perl,
etc. are also server implementation details that do not belong in this
header. Unless I misunderstood Roy's message. I don't see much of a
difference between announcing PHP there and an MPM.
-Rasmus
On Fri, 3 May 2002,
What I meant was I don't think the MPM should be announced to the client.
What possible benefit could there be to doing that?
I mainly had in mind that the authors could track usage that way.
S.
--
Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Engineering group
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Ok, but as far as I am concerned something like PHP, mod_dav, mod_perl,
etc. are also server implementation details that do not belong in this
header. Unless I misunderstood Roy's message. I don't see much of a
difference
At 05:24 PM 5/3/2002, you wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Ok, but where should this information go then? Apache has definitely
benefitted by having this information available. Some sort of
X-SERVER-INFO: header then?
What I meant was I don't think the MPM should be
Ian Holsman wrote:
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Ok, but as far as I am concerned something like PHP, mod_dav, mod_perl,
etc. are also server implementation details that do not belong in this
header. Unless I misunderstood Roy's message. I don't see
At 06:08 PM 5/3/2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Possibly. I guess I draw the line by saying that it's okay to announce
version numbers, but configuration parameters are out. I don't have so
much of a problem with third-party modules
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 06:08 PM 5/3/2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Possibly. I guess I draw the line by saying that it's okay to
announce
version numbers, but configuration parameters are out.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
-0 here too... the problem is that a proxy engine, knowing of a
specific
bug with
Apache 2.0.41 and prior could compensate for that shortcoming. Having
no
version information means the proxy or other client may be
16 matches
Mail list logo
