No proxy on either. Will try the IP tomorrow.
Evan Platt wrote:
On Thu, June 1, 2006 2:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ahh yes, the firewall. Must be blocking external connections.
Unfortunatly that is out of my control. It works from within though,
sorry. I dont see how it would affect only
Based upon previous suggestions, I tried that last
night. Effectively, there was no change in behaviour, so I just have to believe
the problem is a little more fundamental.
What irks me is that there are a number of LoadModule
mod_xxx modules/yy.so
commands immediately after my
Apache MD5 hashes are refolded in such a way that they are expected but not
proven to be less breakable than a straight MD5 hash, and most certainly
expected to be less reducable than direct MD5 collision prediction.
However, a straight (not refolded) flavor of SHA1 is also available and you
woul
On Thu, June 1, 2006 2:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ahh yes, the firewall. Must be blocking external connections.
> Unfortunatly that is out of my control. It works from within though,
> sorry. I dont see how it would affect only 1 broswer, if it were a
> firewall issue. Any suggestions?
Tou
I have been able to make it work in 2.2.2 on a solaris 9 box. My one
problem is that I can only make it work when a user/pass is provided in
the config to bind with. I'll check and make sure I have the correct
behavior for incorrect passwords tomorrow when I can get that machine
turned back on.
So
Has anyone been able to get ldap authentication working
with Apache 2.2.x? I thought that I had it working with 2.2.0, but I just
retested that and ran into the same issue. I'm not the only one who
has seen this problem. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-httpd-users&m=114062112616017&
Ahh yes, the firewall. Must be blocking external connections.
Unfortunatly that is out of my control. It works from within though,
sorry. I dont see how it would affect only 1 broswer, if it were a
firewall issue. Any suggestions?
Kyle
- Original Message -
From: Evan Platt <[EMAIL PROTEC
Hi.
Peter Schmits knows how to set these up to operate together.
He sent me the link
http://www.apachelounge.com/download/mods/php5apache2.dll-php5.1.x.zip,
and followed the instructions. There were no problems and it all
works fine.
Ted.
--
No virus found in this
Hi
I've thought about a hardlink but my boss made sure he had already tried
it. I will try it again just to make sure.
Med vänliga hälsningar
Stefan Midjich aka nocturnal
[Swehack] http://swehack.se
Joshua Slive wrote:
On 6/1/06, nocturnal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
I recognize this
On Thu, June 1, 2006 1:39 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have Apache 2.2.2 setup with SSL enabled on a Solaris 10 machine.
> Everything appears to work fine, but if you load
> https://aurora.valdosta.edu in Firefox (1.5.3), or mozillia, one windows
> or solaris, you first get the accept self-sign
But there is no php5apache2_2.dll file. Only
php5apache2.dll
Where is the 2_2 file to be found. went to
ApacheLounge but it does not have a 2_2.dll, but the comments imply that their
2.dll file was compiled to work with 2.0 and 2.2
On the other hand, incase what I have is still wrong, co
I have Apache 2.2.2 setup with SSL enabled on a Solaris 10 machine.
Everything appears to work fine, but if you load
https://aurora.valdosta.edu in Firefox (1.5.3), or mozillia, one windows
or solaris, you first get the accept self-signed certs dialogs, but then
you get the firefox standard "Proble
A question regarding httpd authentication. Currently I am using the default base64 method, which I believe is insecure. Also only the first 8 characters of our passwords are actually encrypted. We have several scripts which verify passwords from the htpassword file. Mostly using the perl pa
That did the trick! It's surprising though. My hunch is that the
kernel isn't quite behaving as apache is expecting, as the OS is
virtualized using SWSoft's, Virtuozzo. Thanks so much!
Bill
On May 31, 2006, at 5:19 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
On 5/31/06, William Knechtel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
oops srry
:) not
php4...
php5apache2_2.dll for
php-5
php6apache2_2.dll for
php-6
Tests described in this email are priced in Canadian funds (and do not
include shipping charges). To get a US amount divide by 1.1 approximately.
Thanks for using our service and have
Tthere is no need to "compile" anything.
All the windows binary distros have the needed files in them.
-- specify php4apache2.dll with
Apache2.0.x
-- specify
php4apache2_2.dll with Apache2.2.x
Bill Angus, MAhttp://www.psychtest.com
- Original Message -
From:
Schultz, Gary -
On 6/1/06, nocturnal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
I recognize this method from the manuals i've read. I think i've tried
this before but failed because of suExec. I'm thinking suexec does not
allow the users to execute this program.cgi file which is owned by root.
Is there a way around this in
I'm able to see the login mask, but when I try to log in I the
application doesn't start (Page not found)
G
What do the Proxy and WebSphere logfiles reveal?
Have you tried a manual HTTP connection from your
proxy server to your webserver server.
i.e.
telnet
GET / HTTP/1.0
R
--- Gabriel
The default PHP 5.1.4 Apache 2 handler is for Apache 2.0.xx series.
I have gotten php 5.1.4 to run with Apache 2.2.2 using the PHP 5.1.4 Apache
2.2.x handler and Apache 2.2.x build from Apache Lounge.
www.apachelounge.com. Apache Lounge probably has the best Apache Win 32
builds and how to informa
I've plugged in disk_cache instead of mem_cache, and it's caching properly. So
I'm going to go ahead and raise a bug report, as you suggest.
Thanks
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Axel-Stéphane SMORGRAV [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 31 May 2006 15:10
To: users@httpd.apache.org
Subject:
Hi
I recognize this method from the manuals i've read. I think i've tried
this before but failed because of suExec. I'm thinking suexec does not
allow the users to execute this program.cgi file which is owned by root.
Is there a way around this in suexec and still keep the functionality of
su
Hi
I recognize this method from the manuals i've read. I think i've tried
this before but failed because of suExec. I'm thinking suexec does not
allow the users to execute this program.cgi file which is owned by root.
Is there a way around this in suexec and still keep the functionality of
su
> Anyway- looking at the log lines he sent later, perhaps this gives a clue:
Very clever. I can't believe I missed this.
> Maybe this hostname is confusing mod_cache somehow. The fact that it is
> caching the URL, but then doesn't serve from cache because nobody thinks they
> have it tells me
23 matches
Mail list logo
