It was thus said that the Great Joshua Slive once stated:
>
> On 7/9/05, Sean Conner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > RewriteRule ^([0-9][0-9])(.*) nph-blog.cgi/$1$2 [L]
> > RewriteRule ^(test)(.*) nph-raw.cgi/$1$2 [L]
> > RewriteRule ^(foo)(.*) nph-raw.cgi?$1$2 [L]
> >
> > Hit the following URLs:
> >
> > http://work.flummux.org/2005/07/08.1
> > http://work.flummux.org/test
> > http://work.flummux.org/foo
> >
> > And you'll see the spurious output at the bottom of the pages (at least in
> > Firefox and Lynx---the output appears after the </HTML> tag so some brows
> > ers
> > may ignore it, but it's there). I did some searches and could not find any
> > bugs close to this behavior in Apache 2.0 (this all works fine under Apache
> > 1.3, also the main page at http://work.flummux.org/ is a static page so
> > that's why there's no spurious output there). And nothing appears in the
> > error log.
>
> A wild guess: try adding the "PT" flag to your RewriteRules.
Sorry, still get the spurious output.
> If that doesn't work, I'd need to look at the code in mod_cgi that
> decides if a request is nph or not.
It looks to be this part at line 754 of mod_cgi.c:
argv0 = apr_filename_of_pathname(r->filename);
nph = !(strncmp(argv0, "nph-", 4));
It's the handling that seems to be problematic, starting around line 952.
Slightly tangental question: what's the difference between mod_cgi.c and
mod_cgid.c? The handling of nph scripts in both is similar but not exactly
the same.
-spc (But not knowing the internal structure of Apache, thought asking the
developers would be faster ... )
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
" from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
