On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 01:13:08PM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 03/04/2007 01:53 AM, Kevin wrote:
I guess redhat has applied some sort of patch. Does anyone know abou
I don't think so. Joe?
For the record, no, we don't use anything different to the upstream code
here.
Also
On 03/04/2007 01:53 AM, Kevin wrote:
When I upload files 128kb and smaller, it works as expected. When I
attempt to upload files 129kb and larger, I get this:
Error message in browser:
Title: 413 Request Entity Too Large
Page: Request Entity Too Large
The requested resource
After all the discussion, and rereading documentation and config files
and the bug report several times over, I noticed that my apache server
config file used the SSLVerifyClient Directive at level optional and
that the documentation states, In practice only levels 'none' and
'require' are
Hi List-
This isn't a support question, so please don't ignore it.
It's a legitimate dev-type question on the status of an open bug that I
don't see answers to on bugzilla at:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39243
Can anyone share any sort of status on this bug?
I'm
On 03/03/2007 09:50 PM, Kevin wrote:
Hi List-
This isn't a support question, so please don't ignore it.
It's a legitimate dev-type question on the status of an open bug that I
don't see answers to on bugzilla at:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39243
Can anyone
I'm contemplating an HTTP/1.1-only solution, available only if the client
is willing to present expect-header 100-continue, which would involve
no buffering.
Bill
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 03/03/2007 09:50 PM, Kevin wrote:
Hi List-
This isn't a support question, so please don't ignore it.
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:16:52 -0600
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm contemplating an HTTP/1.1-only solution, available only if the
client is willing to present expect-header 100-continue, which would
involve no buffering.
In principle:
+1 if it doesn't break current
Nick Kew wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:16:52 -0600
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm contemplating an HTTP/1.1-only solution, available only if the
client is willing to present expect-header 100-continue, which would
involve no buffering.
In principle:
+1 if it doesn't
On 03/04/2007 12:28 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:16:52 -0600
William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm contemplating an HTTP/1.1-only solution, available only if the
client is willing to present expect-header 100-continue, which would
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 03/03/2007 09:50 PM, Kevin wrote:
Hi List-
This isn't a support question, so please don't ignore it.
It's a legitimate dev-type question on the status of an open bug that I
don't see answers to on bugzilla at:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39243
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
From your comments in bugzilla I am not really sure if you are working with
client
certificates (I see you talking about SSL in general only). And even if you are
working with client certificates this only affects you in the case that you
are using Directory or Location
Kevin wrote:
Additionally, I've added the following to the bug report:
Sorry. I should have added above that there are no client certificates
involved in these uploads. I'm not savvy enough about the internals of
either apache or plone to know, but I suppose that means it's possible
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Additionally, I've added the following to the bug report:
Sorry. I should have added above that there are no client certificates
involved in these uploads. I'm not savvy enough about the internals of
either apache or plone to know, but I suppose that
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
No, currently there are no plans to change this. Please have a look at
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39243#c14
Do I understand correctly from this comment that if a user connects to
the site using a client certificate, and if the SSLClientVerify
Kevin wrote:
Is it your take then, that this problem only manifests itself in a
poorly designed web application? If so, I'll pass that along to the
plone developers and maybe they need to modify some of their code.
That's not what that article, or a host of others, has to say about the
Kevin wrote:
Do I understand correctly from this comment that if a user connects to
the site using a client certificate, and if the SSLClientVerify step
happens before the attempted post operation, that the problem won't
occur? If so, then I should be home free, because with plone, one must
16 matches
Mail list logo
