Looked OK and is now committed to HEAD.
But why are you looking at the status code instead of for the fact that
there is no content-type header and no entity?
/Henrik
Robert Collins wrote:
>
> Henrik/Duane/Adrian,
> I found a bug with the rep_mime_type acl check in client_side that I submitted to the list and went into HEAD recently. The
> attached patch (also available by diffing to the acl_work branch, but I don't guarantee that I won't start on the proper description
> I describe in the comments in the patch ) provides a reasonable workaround to the bug. Could one of you please review the patch and
> apply to HEAD?
>
> I have read the patch, tried to indent (grrr gotta organise indent 1.9.1). build and run-tested on my site.
>
> The bug is really more of an unexpected feature: when testing for content-type on reply mime headers, messages with no entitie will
> never match a mime type, so restrictive access configurations will not let them though. The bad thing is that 304 responses (along
> with 1xx & 204) will never have a content-type header. Therefore they never match and IMS responses to the client always fail. And
> at the moment there is no acl for the status line, so we cannot let the user decide...
>
> I have a long term solution sketched out based on a status line acl (see the description in the source)... any feedback from the
> list on that approach?
>
> Rob
Received on Tue Feb 13 2001 - 14:48:38 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:13:30 MST