Re: Patches and Enhancements for a SSL-Proxy Based on Apache 2.0 (mod_ssl, mod_proxy, mod_headers)

[Todd <to...@yahoo.com>]

Hi

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

Thanks.



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 HTTP 1.0 is obsolete - Apache follows HTTP/1.1, defined in 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