Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Patches and Enhancements for a SSL-Proxy Based on Apache 2.0
 (mod_ssl, mod_proxy, mod_headers)
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:00:12 -0700
Message-ID: <74C48350BD67FA4D8315193D7E41CA596EFFCC@hr-mail.ucsd.edu>
Thread-Topic: Patches and Enhancements for a SSL-Proxy Based on Apache 2.0
 (mod_ssl, mod_proxy, mod_headers)
Thread-Index: AcN+J1eQ3hbTd6ncQwqvIUc7u0jSqgAAH0pg
From: "Resume" <resume@ucsd.edu>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>

please remove my address from this mailing list as I was never asked to =
be put on.=20
Thank you


-----Original Message-----
From: Todd [mailto:todd_643@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 7:56 AM
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Patches and Enhancements for a SSL-Proxy Based on Apache
2.0 (mod_ssl, mod_proxy, mod_headers)


Hi

1.  So whatever happened to this code?=20
2.  Did this ever make it into Apache 2.0.44 and later?

Thanks.


--- In new-httpd@yahoogroups.com, Maik Mueller <maiklst@h...> wrote:
> Hello Graham,
>=20
> Friday, February 14, 2003, 12:17:23 PM, you wrote:
>=20
> GL> Looking at this further, the header value is defined as TEXT.=20
TEXT is
> GL> defined as OCTETs that are not control characters. An OCTET is=20
an 8 bit
> GL> character. As far as I can see it should be up to the entity=20
putting
> GL> data into the header to make sure it does not contain control
> GL> characters. In your case, base64 would thus be safe.
>=20
> RFC2616:
> > The TEXT rule is only used for descriptive field contents and=20
values
> > that are not intended to be interpreted by the message parser.=20
Words
> > of *TEXT MAY contain characters from character sets other than=20
ISO-
> > 8859-1 [22] only when encoded according to the rules of RFC 2047
> > [14].
> >
> >      TEXT           =3D <any OCTET except CTLs,
> >                       but including LWS>
>=20
> >> What do you think about my proposal to add the "E" option with=20
the
> described
> >> behavior to the Header and RequestHeader directive?
> >> Keeping in mind that HTTP 1.0 still warns:
> >>
> >>>However, folding of header lines is not expected by some
> >>>applications, and should not be generated by HTTP/1.0=20
applications.
>=20
> GL> HTTP 1.0 is obsolete - Apache follows HTTP/1.1, defined in=20
RFC2616.
>=20
> Why not providing a way to put arbitrary data base64 encoded in a
> single-line header?
>=20
> --
> Best regards,
>  Maik