RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Altering what the internet (but not intranet) sees for a vhost

2007-09-27 Thread gb1071nx
Thanks Joshua, > > There are lots of different ways to do this. Here's a > relatively simple one: > > > Order deny,allow > Deny from all > Allow from intranet.example.com > ErrorDocument 403 /underconstruction.html > When I try this, and via a connection to the outside world, try to access

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Altering what the internet (but not intranet) sees for a vhost

2007-09-27 Thread gb1071nx
I've looked at the deny/allow but that doesn't seem really right. I don't want to deny access to a vhost, if you're from the internet. I want to change what you're seeing. My scenario is that I'm doing maintenance on a website, and so I still need to be able to access it from "inside the buildi

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Paranoia check regarding mod_proxy / mod_rewrite

2007-09-12 Thread gb1071nx
I've just recently compiled and installed the mod_rewrite and mod_proxy modules. My specific reason for doing so is that I wanted to use AJAX calls between two internal (intranet) domains, but due to 'same origin' policy, could not. Google told me that I can get around this by proxying. All sor

RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mod_proxy giving access forbidden

2007-09-07 Thread gb1071nx
was valid for the URL /proxy/www3.domain.com/. If you are using a DSO version of mod_proxy, make sure the proxy submodules are included in the configuration using LoadModule From: gb1071nx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mod_proxy giving access forbidden

2007-09-07 Thread gb1071nx
I'm trying out some rewrite rules, and I have one that works without [P] (but does it's work as a 302, found, but over there...) . But when I add [P], I get a 403 forbidden. in the non-[P] version, I can just sniff the 'location' header to find out what is being requested. Is there a way I

RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unable to compile mod_rewrite

2007-09-07 Thread gb1071nx
> > > > One last question then (the reason I'm even compiling apache in the > > first place): > > > > I have an existing production server that does not have mod_rewrite > > either as an .so or within the list of "httpd -l" . Is it a very > > stupid idea to download the particular version of

RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unable to compile mod_rewrite

2007-09-07 Thread gb1071nx
n Behalf Of > Joshua Slive > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 1:30 PM > To: users@httpd.apache.org > Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unable to compile mod_rewrite > > On 9/7/07, gb1071nx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Leaving aside arguments regarding d

RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unable to compile mod_rewrite

2007-09-07 Thread gb1071nx
? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Joshua Slive > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 12:12 PM > To: users@httpd.apache.org > Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unable to compile mod_rewrite > > On 9/7/07, gb1071nx &

[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unable to compile mod_rewrite

2007-09-07 Thread gb1071nx
Hi, first-time poster (go easy on me) I've downloaded httpd 2.0.59 and untar'd it. I've used ./configure like so: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/mikec/httpd-2.0.59# ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/applications/2059 --enable-so --enable-rewrite (all on o