Graham,
Thanks. This patch definately will do the trick as I have already applied the
same to test it. The browser reuses the original user:[EMAIL PROTECTED] syntax
for
each subsequent relative URL access. This results in the same behaviour as
using a squid proxy which does not use a base hre
Jon Snow wrote:
Does anyone have any idea why/whether the BASE HREF is required in the
proxy_ftp html code returned to the client?
I've no idea either. The more I try and speculate, the less
I can find a reason that works.
Assuming whoever implemented it had some valid reason for it,
I wonder
Jon Snow wrote:
Does anyone have any idea why/whether the BASE HREF is required in the
proxy_ftp html code returned to the client? I would like to remove it as it is
breaking relative links for my client's browsers that are not using an
Authorization header. I have not found anywhere in the RF
Does anyone have any idea why/whether the BASE HREF is required in the
proxy_ftp html code returned to the client? I would like to remove it as it is
breaking relative links for my client's browsers that are not using an
Authorization header. I have not found anywhere in the RFCs where it is
s
