Bug#78732: marked as done (gives 403 after a logrotate-HUP)
Your message dated Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:46:35 +0100
with message-id <20031014174635.GE27861@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
and subject line Too old
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Dec 2000 06:51:03 +0000
>From kma@networks.nera.no Mon Dec 04 00:51:03 2000
Return-path: <kma@networks.nera.no>
Received: from nera45.networks.nera.no (eris.bgo.nera.no) [195.204.181.130]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 142pSm-0008A0-00; Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:51:01 -0600
Received: from kma by eris.bgo.nera.no with local (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian))
id 142pSA-0005Wa-00; Mon, 04 Dec 2000 07:50:22 +0100
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: gives 403 after a logrotate-HUP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Ketil Malde <ketil@ii.uib.no>
Date: 04 Dec 2000 07:50:22 +0100
Message-ID: <KETIL-vk1hf4kllxt.fsf@eris.bgo.nera.no>
Lines: 26
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: Ketil Malde <kma@networks.nera.no>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: apache
Version: 1.3.12-2.2
Hi
Last night, I got a mail complaining that my box claimed all pages
had access 'forbidden'. The logs showed that a received HUP,
presumably part of a log rotation, had started the trouble.
In fact, my server did 403 on any directory I tried, the main dir,
public_html in people's home dirs, anything.
My first thought was that I'd made some configuration error and
forgotten to reload config to test - the dates on access.conf and
srm.conf were a couple of days previously. However, I was unable to
find anything wrong. Although I did revert a minor change (/usr/doc
-> /usr/share/doc), a reload didn't clear it up. A restart did,
though.
It seems to me as if this might be an apache bug? Let me know if
there's any further information I can supply!
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 78732-close) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Oct 2003 17:46:36 +0000
>From willy@www.linux.org.uk Tue Oct 14 12:46:36 2003
Return-path: <willy@www.linux.org.uk>
Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk (www.linux.org.uk) [195.92.249.252]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1A9TFk-00030r-00; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:46:36 -0500
Received: from willy by www.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.22)
id 1A9TFj-0004Wt-Gx
for 78732-close@bugs.debian.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:46:35 +0100
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:46:35 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>
To: 78732-close@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Too old
Message-ID: <20031014174635.GE27861@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: <willy@www.linux.org.uk>
Delivered-To: 78732-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_60
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_13
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_13 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
This bug was reported against 1.3.12-2.2 of Apache. It seems impossible
to track down this bug at this point, so this bug report has no value
any more. If it can be reproduced with a recent apache, please file a
new bug.
--
"It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk
Reply to: