ogy is not having one at all and,
> in general, the "constructive criticism" is all well-intentioned.
Well, then we might just have to continue discussing this technology. I'd
repost my original
question, and I kindly ask everyone just to forget all the OpenPGP stuff.
I want to
ned.
Well, then we might just have to continue discussing this technology. I'd
repost my original
question, and I kindly ask everyone just to forget all the OpenPGP stuff.
I want to Completely Transform a Request. 100% transformation.
Based on a certain logic, If an incoming request
rypts the request, then gives the
unencrypted one to apache to serve.
I'd really like to have 1 (and 3, because it would work for pre 2.0 Apache and
other webservers).
- From what you say, I CAN do 1 (mod-rewrite stuff, internal redirect, etc)
easily. But the fact that
a connection input f
> Arturo wrote...
>
> Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.
> I really appreciate it.
>
> I was able to read a whole "pgp-encrypted" request,
> even a large 12+MB one using my code. I read the
> content-length header, then read up to that quantity of
> bytes, saving the brigades to
-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
-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
[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
> 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
-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
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
[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
> 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
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
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
[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
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi!
I need to write an input filter that takes a request, and completely modifies
it: URI, HTTP METHOD,
POST BODY, etc. I reckon I have to replace the bucket brigade with a
populated-by-me bucket brigade,
but I'm a bit lost in certain aspects.
I
18 matches
Mail list logo
