On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 21:39 +0100, James Westby wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is a bundle for the 0.90 branch that attempts to fix this
> issue.
>
> The commit message hopefully explains the issue and the fix quite well,
> but I am not sure it is the correct one, specifically is it now being
> too lenient, in that it will allow two URIs to match that refer to
> different ports?
This is clearly wrong.
The right way to handle this is to use the default port number if none
has been explicitly provided.
E.g. to do a comparison with http, you need to supply 80, for https 443,
etc.
bb:resubmit
On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 21:39 +0100, James Westby wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached is a bundle for the 0.90 branch that attempts to fix this
> issue.
>
> The commit message hopefully explains the issue and the fix quite well,
> but I am not sure it is the correct one, specifically is it now being
> too lenient, in that it will allow two URIs to match that refer to
> different ports?
This is clearly wrong.
The right way to handle this is to use the default port number if none
has been explicitly provided.
E.g. to do a comparison with http, you need to supply 80, for https 443,
etc.
-Rob www.robertcolli ns.net/ keys.txt>.
--
GPG key available at: <http://