Message-ID: <01077E3A413FD1118E3200A0C90A40282093B5@EX-PGH-1>
From: Sam Robb <srobb@wisewire.com>
To: "'new-httpd@apache.org'" <new-httpd@apache.org>
Subject: RE: cvs commit: apache-1.3 STATUS
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 16:51:12 -0400 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

> So now it's my turn, I guess.  I'd like to hear from [some of] the lurkers
> on this list whether they think run-time *additions* to the server version
> are a good thing, neutral, or a bad thing.  If a majority say the former,

I'm honestly confused about the debate over allowing someone
to add to the server version string.  As has been pointed out,
if someone wants to do that, they can hack the source to do
so... or, given the presence of ap_add_version_component(), it's
no big deal to write a module who's sole purpose in life is to
mangle the server version string at runtime.

Apache's already the most flexible, configurable webserver I've
ever seen.  When a webmaster has the ability to rewrite URLs,
run arbitrary CGI programs, ship back non-parsed headers... the
ability to add to the server version string seems minor.

There is *one* point that I don't thinks been brought up:
there probably should be a config command that forces the
server version string back to the base string ("Apache/1.3", etc.)
for users who don't want to announce their capabilities to the
world.

- Samrobb (srobb@wisewire.com)
- WiseWire Corporation - The Content Agent Company (SM)
- http://www.wisewire.com
- http://www.lycos.com/webguides/webguides.html

The box said 'Requires Windows 95, or better.' So I bought a Macintosh.