Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Block File Types

2005-08-07 Thread Joshua Slive
On 8/6/05, Michael D. Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You are correct. In this case, I only wanted to prevent > the argument string from intefering with detection of the > file I do not want to send. Should I perhaps use both > methods, since in any case, I have the RewriteEngine > running fo

RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Block File Types

2005-08-06 Thread Michael D. Berger
> -Original Message- > From: Joshua Slive [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 10:19 PM > To: users@httpd.apache.org > Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Block File Types > > > On 8/6/05, Michael D. Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Block File Types

2005-08-06 Thread Joshua Slive
On 8/6/05, Michael D. Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for this help; it works as advertised. The \?* deals with the > situation in which there are arguments in the request. Experiment > shows that with yout method, the \?* is not necessary. I was afraid of that. The query string is no

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Block File Types

2005-08-06 Thread Joshua Slive
On 8/6/05, Michael D. Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to prevent Apache 2.0 from sending any > file of a particular type. In my VirtualHost I put: > > RewriteEngine on > RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^.*notThis\?*$ > RewriteRule ^.*$ /zzz [L] > > Is there a better way? Orde

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Block File Types

2005-08-06 Thread Michael D. Berger
I would like to prevent Apache 2.0 from sending any file of a particular type. In my VirtualHost I put: RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^.*notThis\?*$ RewriteRule ^.*$ /zzz [L] Is there a better way? Thanks, Mike. -- Michael D. Berger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -

RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Block File Types

2005-08-06 Thread Michael D. Berger
> -Original Message- > From: Joshua Slive [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 11:40 AM > To: users@httpd.apache.org > Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Block File Types > > > On 8/6/05, Michael D. Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >