Re: complaint about CGI

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jan 94-present
• Next message: Rob McCool: "Re: CGI/1.1 draft"
• Previous message: Rob McCool: "Re: Insecure WWW Access Authorization Protocol?"
• Maybe in reply to: Markus Stumpf: "Re: complaint about CGI"
• Reply: George Phillips: "Re: complaint about CGI"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 02:24:22 --100
Message-id: <9403160115.AA05425@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: robm@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: robm@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Rob McCool)
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: complaint about CGI
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
Content-Length: 763

/*
 * Re: complaint about CGI  by Markus Stumpf
 *    written on Mar  6,  5:25pm.
 *
 * Could we also have some support for the HTTP response the server
 * will send?
 * 
 * It would really be nice to be able to have a CGI script generate
 * e.g. a FORBIDDEN message.
 * All I managed to produce so far is to send back some HTML document
 * that says forbidden but the server still tells OK.

How about a header line

Status: xxx mmm

where xxx is the 3 digit HTTP status code, and mmm is the message, such as
Forbidden.

 * When trying to implement e.g. proxy gateways via CGI scripts
 * this is really needed I think or otherwise we can't have a
 * transparent handling of the data.
 * 
 * Or is it already there and I didn't notice that?
 */

It's not.

--Rob