Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 60497 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2007 05:42:22 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 9 Jan 2007 05:42:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 39195 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jan 2007 05:42:22 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 39150 invoked by uid 500); 9 Jan 2007 05:42:22 -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: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 39139 invoked by uid 99); 9 Jan 2007 05:42:21 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:42:21 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [207.155.248.4] (HELO repulse.cnchost.com) (207.155.248.4) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:42:11 -0800 Received: from [192.168.0.21] (c-24-15-193-17.hsd1.il.comcast.net [24.15.193.17]) (as wrowe@rowe-clan.net) by repulse.cnchost.com (ConcentricHost(2.54) Relay) with ESMTP id DC8EA2F9C for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:41:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <45A32B0D.800@rowe-clan.net> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:41:33 -0600 From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061107) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review References: <459F5295.6050108@rowe-clan.net> <45A2BBE0.3070501@bellatlantic.net> <45A2DB23.2020506@rowe-clan.net> <45A30AC7.90101@bellatlantic.net> In-Reply-To: <45A30AC7.90101@bellatlantic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Tom Donovan wrote: > > Perhaps it would be simpler to presume that remote_addr *is* always > known on Windows, and make sure all the Windows APR socket functions > live up to this rule. Simpler? Sure, if apr is only for httpd when AcceptEx() is in use :-/ Of course, that's not true, the implementation is bogus, we need to toggle this as !remote_addr_unknown in apr_os_sock_put *****when appropriate*****.