Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 16:53:08 -0600 (MDT)
From: Marc Slemko <marcs@worldgate.com>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unreadable .htaccess 
In-Reply-To: <199708242247.RAA21363@sierra.zyzzyva.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970824165218.6219H-100000@valis.worldgate.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

On Sun, 24 Aug 1997, Randy Terbush wrote:

> +1 on this patch
> 
> Perhaps we should be returning HTTP_UNAUTHORIZED?  Seems that might 
> point to the source of the problem best.

Erm... no, because that response means that if they authenticate they can
access it.

> 
> 
> > Reposted; minor change since the first posting by adding ENOTDIR.
> > 
> > I'm interested in if people think HTTP_FORBIDDEN or
> > HTTP_INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR is the more appropriate.  
> > 
> > My view is that part of the resource is how the .htaccess file says it
> > should be presented, so if we can't read the .htaccess we can't read part
> > of the resource so forbidden is appropriate.
> > 
> > If you do server error, then the following situation:
> > 
> >     $ mkdir ~/public_html/dir
> >     $ chmod 700 !$
> >     $ lynx http://localhost/~user/dir/
> > 
> > will give a server error, which is counterintuitive in some ways.  The
> > current interpretation of forbidden does not just apply to the final file.
> > 
> > In any case, I could go for either so majority feedback probably wins.
> 
> 
>