Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 18339 invoked by uid 500); 18 Oct 2001 13:24:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 18320 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2001 13:24:47 -0000 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:24:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Dale Ghent To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] for ServerSignatures / ServerTokens In-Reply-To: <200110181219.IAA05039@devsys.jaguNET.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Jim Jagielski wrote: | If people have "valid" reasons for wanting it changed, then they should | be smart enough to know where to edit the code... Yeah, it would be | cool, but I share your concerns as well. We all value ourselves as able coders and at the very least, able to be intuitive and figure stuff out on our own... and rightfully so, I must say :) But consider this other vantage point on this seemingly more-religous-than technical issue: There are companies out there that deploy alot of Apache instances for their customers. Typically, this Apache is deployed in a precompiled, packaged form to N number of servers. If one customer wants a custom server ID line returned to clients for , that means a special one-off Apache must be compiled for the customer and maintained into the future - a veritable thorn in the side when managing server farms. I have seen rather silly/invalid reasons for wanting it changed. I have also seen pretty valid ones, too. Perhaps a compromise may be reached... maybe we should always display "Apache 2.blah" and let the remainder of what may be displayed be arbitrarily configurable. /dale