Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36FB519B94 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:56:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 63702 invoked by uid 500); 13 Apr 2016 10:56:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 63633 invoked by uid 500); 13 Apr 2016 10:56:08 -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 63623 invoked by uid 99); 13 Apr 2016 10:56:08 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:56:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 4F287C0E0C for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:56:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.802 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.802 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ty_gJCIAgiex for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f67.google.com (mail-qg0-f67.google.com [209.85.192.67]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 372475F24D for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f67.google.com with SMTP id b32so4231161qgf.2 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:56:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=YhR3ZTDi55Mryj3JrXFfFlERLt43qNtIS6ycYEFD/kQ=; b=XIyV08TJDLT+WnTlScX6Lv5fVBFBIdTYRb9KNx8zS5npLj642csWWMYJj6CMSVdTQS HDpBRjJsmjAo8sCKD2kL+A8aOztK/KEEV1N4UdWEL1DKp6dBQqKECa0SRHzE4oiSyS/P 1l12fbUQbLGNiEXOV3T6B+5aFKNeGxfjdZCt7VtXhOAWa5cjEjRf9+My02ak3B1ar7AL 5jTJFOsfemMA1Y9Gh0S8GFGK/Iw+bn9+nCARU9XSnEz4KjflRyofKkvJ1okANh/tFRtT 3Mvx63qLijf7xtA20TQbG5HSLCcOWChqhKFwA7Pvs+tnQvovN0inndrOJ4V+RZ4sPCcy mfYw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=YhR3ZTDi55Mryj3JrXFfFlERLt43qNtIS6ycYEFD/kQ=; b=CIeIpwP//m4/K+0ewW+Kzo3+98nLQm839HDfLrtVyJZQZcl9c78HlpjRdVWxPZH21f LrJVoLD+QA99X+lCJlwqXCVkncBUdQNbbdKQ3o4XPzST+8nO6q56+JTMY+7PaHYBGhW7 nBHelMQijgAtLOGMJi20Oq4Bd3Im434FisTu1Fh7ykmCz95vN+SoSKbnb16f6q7S5qBo 84BR5FxrFbCUt8G5O743BnNIzMDdm7AfHLsva1DvsCICOtQMsLfcsjH0I44m3K04O411 MQw0Usaw8OoM6emN/sv606vHbebf1m/2UcVNuCYMLDO9bflE9jBKrSQHPieTtlGVy1AZ t6QA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FX96BhPP5rGIUTPa0Xojx04XQcZV6G3eWRLjAd8BSNzjyWFnpt0fsXT9SVPjS+wD593PczIFyF3NKGnlw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.43.37 with SMTP id d34mr9925693qga.51.1460544959383; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.55.9.147 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:55:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <570E220C.8090101@kippdata.de> References: <570E220C.8090101@kippdata.de> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:55:59 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Allow SSLProxy* config in context? From: Yann Ylavic To: httpd-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: > > To me it looks like the "right" way of handling SSLProxy* config would be > per . ++1 > Did anyone else already encounter a similar problem? Any > thoughts or experiments on how to solve this for the future? Not sure how to handle this since is in mod_proxy whereas SSLProxy* are in mod_ssl. is a dir_config still, not sure how we could make it available/shared in/with mod_ssl... Regards, Yann.