Igor Sysoev wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 06:17:31PM +0300, Marcus Clyne wrote:
>
>
>>>> I tried that, but am getting the following message in the error log:
>>>>
>>>> 2009/09/04 17:10:10 [error] 18834#0: *1 zero length URI to proxy,
>>>> client: 127.0.0.1, server: localhost, request: "GET /ssi/test.shtml
>>>> HTTP/1.1", subrequest: "/proxy-google/google.com", host: "localhost"
>>>>
>>>>
>>> - /proxy-google/google.com
>>> + /proxy-google/google.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> If I use that setup with the resolver defined as 127.0.0.1, I get
>> multiple copies of the following error:
>>
>> 2009/09/04 17:56:56 [alert] 22981#0: recv() failed (111: Connection refused)
>>
>> Do I need a DNS server running? I tried it with multiple domains, and
>> the same errors are given.
>>
>
> Yes, you need to run DNS server on 127.0.0.1.
>
Ok.
>> If I use that setup without the resolver defined, there's a segmentation
>> fault :
>>
>> 2009/09/04 18:08:44 [error] 12059#0: *2 no resolver defined to resolve
>> google.com, client: 127.0.0.1, server: localhost, request: "GET
>> /ssi/test.shtml HTTP/1.1", subrequest: "/proxy/google.com/", host:
>> "localhost"
>> 2009/09/04 18:08:44 [notice] 12053#0: signal 17 (SIGCHLD) received
>> 2009/09/04 18:08:44 [alert] 12053#0: worker process 12059 exited on
>> signal 11
>>
This still looks like a minor bug, though. I've not really got the time
to dig around and find/correct it, but am happy to test a patch.

Marcus.