Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.7.5/V2.0) id RAA25223; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 17:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fully.organic.com by taz.hyperreal.com (8.7.5/V2.0) with ESMTP id RAA25217; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 17:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (brian@localhost) by fully.organic.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA03247 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 00:56:09 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: fully.organic.com: brian owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 17:56:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Behlendorf To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: deny user-agents In-Reply-To: <199609231507.QAA03767> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Rob Hartill wrote: > Ben Laurie wrote: > > > >Brian Behlendorf wrote: > >> > >> > >> I don't know if this has been committed yet or not, but I have a complaint from > >> a keep-the-config-file-manageable perspective: why can't we keep all > >> browser-string-matching stuff tied to the BrowserMatch directive? What other > >> request conditions tests will be added to "deny from"? > > > >Oh yeah. I knew there was another concern ;-). Actually, I thought this had > >been done. Was I wrong? > > Will there be lots of wheel reinventing in order to add these types > of extensions to Browser specific directives. For example, all the > code to do allow/deny based on directory/file/url has been written and > tested, the alternative being proposed now suggests (to me) duplicating > those features specifically for browsers. Something in the back of my head says mod_rewrite can handle that. Ralf? BTW, Ralf, is there documentation on mod_rewrite we can put on www.apache.org? Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com www.apache.org hyperreal.com http://www.organic.com/JOBS