Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 19399 invoked by uid 500); 21 Sep 2000 15:56:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 19282 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2000 15:56:07 -0000 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:56:01 -0400 Message-Id: <200009211556.LAA03029@adsl-77-241-65.rdu.bellsouth.net> X-Authentication-Warning: adsl-77-241-65.rdu.bellsouth.net: trawick set sender to trawickj@bellsouth.net using -f From: Jeff Trawick To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: subrequest filtering (yet again) Reply-to: trawickj@bellsouth.net X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I gather that most folks want a subrequest to inherit the content filters associated with the original request. Why is this? If the set of filters isn't appropriate, you can't get rid of them. If the set of filters is appropriate, then the configuration associated with the subrequest URI would have caused the right filters to be added anyway (unless the URI of the subrequest is only requested via a subrequest). What am I missing? -- Jeff Trawick | trawick@ibm.net | PGP public key at web site: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ Born in Roswell... married an alien...