On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 19:40 -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 15:25 -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote:
Something like this will most likely work for everyone (ipv4/v6) with
the only difference is that the test servers are not listening to
localhost
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May be also something related with transfer and chunk.
Perfectly possible.
Stay tuned
Glued to the TV at this point.
Ok, my customer use a HTTP 1.0 socket handling but marked
HTTP 1.1 header ;(
It works now that he's use HTTP 1.0 header.
We're now trying to
Title: Apache 1.3.9 - HPUX
Hi,
I have not got any pointers for my problem mention below.
Still i am waiting for reply. Anybody can suggest solution for me. This is very
critical for us.
Thanks
in advance.
Regards,
-
Santhi
-Original Message-From: Guntupalli, Santhi
Sent:
Plain text please..
- What does it say in the error_log?
- are you *certain* you are using the correct PW (including case etc.)?
Create a user with pw = a just to be sure.
- 1.3.9 is an ancient version with many bugs and security holes. Is
there no chance to upgrade?
Rgds,
Owen Boyle
Whoops - just realised that this is on the dev list... Apologies to all...
To Santhi: This would be better addressed on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rgds,
Owen Boyle
Disclaimer: Any disclaimer attached to this message may be ignored.
-Original Message-
From: Boyle Owen
Sent: Mittwoch, 31.
Hi to all,
A new question to HTTP / RFC gurus.
A customer has developped a custom PHP HTTP client,
using HTTP 1.0 and compression.
This HTTP client compress both request and replies.
For replies it works great but for request we have
a doubt.
Since the HTTP client compress a request there is in
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Henri Gomez wrote:
Also the Content-Length is set to the size of the
plain request (not the size of the compressed request).
Is it correct or should it send the Content-Length with
the size of the compressed request ?
In such case, it seems that mod_deflate INPUT
Joshua Slive wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Henri Gomez wrote:
Also the Content-Length is set to the size of the
plain request (not the size of the compressed request).
Is it correct or should it send the Content-Length with
the size of the compressed request ?
In such case, it seems that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
Hi to all,
A new question to HTTP / RFC gurus.
A customer has developped a custom PHP HTTP client,
using HTTP 1.0 and compression.
That's like mixing Vodka and Beer... something could
easily puke... but OK... I hear ya...
This HTTP client compress both
Hi,
I have an application that uses apache 1.3.x. When I try to run Apache in single user mode i.e. httpd -X, on doing apachectl start, I am getting core. The bact trace of core is as below:
#0 0xfe975a38 in Perl_share_hek () from /export/home/Apache/libexec/libperl.so(gdb) bt#0 0xfe975a38 in
g g wrote:
Hi,
I have an application that uses apache 1.3.x. When I try to run Apache in single user mode i.e. httpd -X, on doing apachectl start, I am getting core. The bact trace of core is as below:
#0 0xfe975a38 in Perl_share_hek () from /export/home/Apache/libexec/libperl.so
(gdb) bt
#0
Stas Bekman wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
On Mar 18, 2004, at 12:21 AM, Sander Striker wrote:
I've put the 2.0.49 tarballs up at:
I'm not entirely happy about IPv6/IPv4 behaviour on at least FreeBSD
5.2.1 and MacOSX 10.3.{2,3}, possibly others.
I'm seeing the following when running the
APACHE 1.3 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/03/30 13:51:57 $]
Release:
1.3.30-dev: In development. Jim proposes a release around the
April 2, 2004.
1.3.29: Tagged October 24, 2003. Announced Oct 29, 2003.
APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/03/31 23:08:45 $]
Release:
2.0.50 : in development
2.0.49 : released March 19, 2004 as GA.
2.0.48 : released October 29, 2003 as GA.
2.0.47 : released July 09, 2003 as GA.
APACHE 2.1 STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2004/01/04 15:08:00 $]
Release [NOTE that only Alpha/Beta releases occur in 2.1 development]:
2.1.0 : in development
Please consult the following STATUS files for information
on related
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
Hi to all,
A new question to HTTP / RFC gurus.
A customer has developped a custom PHP HTTP client,
using HTTP 1.0 and compression.
That's like mixing Vodka and Beer... something could
easily puke... but OK... I hear ya...
That's a
Hi,
I have written a database-driven module for the Apache 2 on Windows
(mpm_winnt). I am actually creating and storing all data send by the clients
in global variables (within that module) so each client process is able to
access all data globally (not only the data send by him or her) until
17 matches
Mail list logo