On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Daniel Stenberg wrote:

> You should probably get everything new in a separate
> directory and work in that. We've moved around and fiddled
> with the authentication code a lot since 7.10.7.

Will do.

> > This actually seems not so bad, although I don't know how it works
> > with other authentication schemes. I'm pretty sure more code is
> > needed to deal with them. Some of the code I wrote
> > probably needs to be more general too.
>
> Yes, your patch is a nice beginning but is a bit too focused
> on NTLM to a host. It doesn't even do NTLM over a proxy
> properly with --fail, not to mention Digest or Negotiate.

I can probably deal with testing NTLM over a proxy. Not sure about the
others. I'm working on the setup now. If someone has a server (or
servers/proxies/etc.) I can use, I'll make sure to test with it. It will
certainly speed things up for me. Are there some tests that I can add to
the testsuite to help with this? As in, ones that will fail now, but start
working when the code is patched properly? Seems like that would require
teaching sws about all these authentication schemes, but maybe there's
another way.

> 22 is the code to return for this. Why isn't that specific enough?

22 is fine. Some kind of code indicating authentication failed, if curl
knows that's what happened "would be nice", but that's all.

> I think we need to work a bit harder on making this code more
> generic for all authentication schemes. In the CVS code, we
> have a 'authdone' argument that is set to TRUE when the
> "final" HTTP request is sent in lib/http.c. That information
> could probably be put to use somehow.

I'll take a look at the new code and see what I can do.

Thanks for the help.

-DB

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects.
See the people who have HELPED US provide better services:
Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php
Received on 2003-10-08