It was thus said that the Great Joshua Slive once stated: > > On 7/9/05, Sean Conner <sean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > RewriteRule ^([0-9][0-9])(.*) nph-blog.cgi/$1$2 [L] > > RewriteRule ^(test)(.*) nph-raw.cgi/$1$2 [L] > > RewriteRule ^(foo)(.*) nph-raw.cgi?$1$2 [L] > > > > Hit the following URLs: > > > > http://work.flummux.org/2005/07/08.1 > > http://work.flummux.org/test > > http://work.flummux.org/foo > > > > And you'll see the spurious output at the bottom of the pages (at least in > > Firefox and Lynx---the output appears after the </HTML> tag so some brows ers > > may ignore it, but it's there). I did some searches and could not find any > > bugs close to this behavior in Apache 2.0 (this all works fine under Apache > > 1.3, also the main page at http://work.flummux.org/ is a static page so > > that's why there's no spurious output there). And nothing appears in the > > error log. > > A wild guess: try adding the "PT" flag to your RewriteRules. Sorry, still get the spurious output. > If that doesn't work, I'd need to look at the code in mod_cgi that > decides if a request is nph or not. It looks to be this part at line 754 of mod_cgi.c: argv0 = apr_filename_of_pathname(r->filename); nph = !(strncmp(argv0, "nph-", 4)); It's the handling that seems to be problematic, starting around line 952. Slightly tangental question: what's the difference between mod_cgi.c and mod_cgid.c? The handling of nph scripts in both is similar but not exactly the same. -spc (But not knowing the internal structure of Apache, thought asking the developers would be faster ... ) --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx