e IP port. This behaviour is similar to the
> corresponding environment variables defined by CGI.
Those who don't learn about UCSPI are doomed to reinvent it badly, as here.
On that note, I am happy to report my discovery that GNU inetd has
UCSPI-TCP support.
* http://homepage.ntlworld
On 08/06/2015 01:38, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
And I am regretful and slightly hesitant to report a security bug in
s6-networking, where it fails (unless I have missed something) to
wipe any existing UCSPI-TCP environment variables that it isn't
setting, per the spec, but merely _me
I *know* that at some point I read about an httpd (using CGI) that
worked with UCSPI; anyone know where that would have been? I figure I
could implement one myself but surely one already exists.
--
fREW Schmidt
https://blog.afoolishmanifesto.com
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 09:32:45AM -0800, fREW Schmidt wrote:
> I *know* that at some point I read about an httpd (using CGI) that
> worked with UCSPI; anyone know where that would have been? I figure I
> could implement one myself but surely one already exists.
At some point,
23, 2016 at 09:32:45AM -0800, fREW Schmidt wrote:
> > I *know* that at some point I read about an httpd (using CGI) that
> > worked with UCSPI; anyone know where that would have been? I figure I
> > could implement one myself but surely one already exists.
>
> At some
tly what I want:
UCSPI support ("inetd mode"), CGI support, and a bit of
easy configuration.
--
Laurent
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:33:49 -0800
fREW Schmidt wrote:
> That is what I remember, but sadly: "publicfile never runs any other
> programs. It does not support HTTP CGI or FTP SITE EXEC."
>
> I'll implement my own unless someone knows of another one that
> s
gt;https://cr.yp.to/publicfile.html
>>
>
> publicfile only serves static files, it doesn't support CGI.
>
> I had a patch for it to implement CGI support, but it was
> rather ugly. I dropped it long ago.
>
> I'm now using busybox httpd, which does exactly wha
On 23/01/2016 20:56, Wayne Marshall wrote:
fnord is ucspi, supports cgi, and I've used it successfully in that
context:
I wouldn't recommend fnord. I have used it too, successfully too.
But the code is not nice: little attention to error management, for
instance. And fnord is also r
Sadly neither of these support arbitrary http headers, which I need
--
sent from a rotary phone, pardon my brevity
On Jan 23, 2016 2:58 PM, "Laurent Bercot"
wrote:
> On 23/01/2016 20:56, Wayne Marshall wrote:
>
>> fnord is ucspi, supports cgi, and I've used it succ
3, 2016 2:58 PM, "Laurent Bercot"
> wrote:
>
>> On 23/01/2016 20:56, Wayne Marshall wrote:
>>
>>> fnord is ucspi, supports cgi, and I've used it successfully in that
>>> context:
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't recommend fnord. I
It might be worth asking what
* http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2006-10/msg00770.html
was all about.
See also:
* https://dev.openwrt.org/ticket/8453
* http://people.igalia.com/aperez/bill/lib/www/http.html
*
http://www.mail-archive.com/fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org/msg02065.html
12 matches
Mail list logo