[ Please send any questions like this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 11:31:21AM +, Isabella Pighi wrote:
So I've got a question for you.
Does Flood reuse SSL session id's for ongoing connection requestes to the
same server? Or does Flood leave it empty for all new
Oh, no. I wonder how we're skipping the lock initializations.
I have two exams today, so there is no way I'm going to look
at it now. -- justin
---BeginMessage---
here it is:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/flood/httpd-test/flood $ gdb .libs/flood core
GNU gdb 5.1
Copyright 2001 Free Software Foundation,
Doug MacEachern wrote:
if = 5.60 output of t/TEST -d lwp t/http11/basicauth.t
would be useful.
No real joy:
http11/basicauth1..3
GET http://localhost:8529/authany/index.html:
User-Agent: libwww-perl/5.62
HTTP/1.1 401 (Unauthorized) Authorization Required
Connection: Keep-Alive
Date:
Does Flood reuse SSL session id's for ongoing connection requests to the same
server? Or does Flood leave it empty for all new requests thus forcing
regeneration and exchange of session keys and other related data?
I am doing some test over here and we are desperately looking for a tool which
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Client-Response-Num: 3
...
my $request_num = $res-header('Client-Request-Num');
...
Was that supposed to be 'Client-Response-Num' instead of 'Request'?
no, that's correct for lwp 5.60. i just made a change so both versions
are supported.
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 07:10:40PM +, Isabella Pighi wrote:
Does Flood reuse SSL session id's for ongoing connection requests to the same
server? Or does Flood leave it empty for all new requests thus forcing
regeneration and exchange of session keys and other related data?
I am doing
* On 2001-12-06 at 18:35,
Doug MacEachern [EMAIL PROTECTED] excited the electrons to say:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Client-Response-Num: 3
...
my $request_num = $res-header('Client-Request-Num');
...
Was that supposed to be 'Client-Response-Num' instead of
* On 2001-12-06 at 18:43,
Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] excited the electrons to say:
Eh. So why am I not seeing Client-Request-Num in the LWP
output? Rrrr...
Hmm.. maybe because 'User-Agent: lwp-request/1.37' instead of 1.40?
Which is what I get on another system where this
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Eh. So why am I not seeing Client-Request-Num in the LWP
output? Rrrr...
because your are using lwp 5.62?
the change was actually made in 5.61, from Changes:
- Client-Request-Num renamed to Client-Response-Num
