I don't have much to say about this patch in particular, but I want to praise OpenBSD's httpd in general. I'm a hacker, not a systems administrator, and while I know how to set up Unix systems, I'm not an expert, nor do I have the time or inclination to become one. OpenBSD's httpd (and the other OpenBSD daemons for that matter) are distinct in that they have so few features, and are documented so well, that I can configure them and feel that I understand exactly the implications of my configuration. I trust that what I have built works. I have even read the code on occasion if I was unsure about something - it's short and simple, so it's perfectly feasible.<p>I have no illusions about OpenBSD's httpd being able to replace nginx or Apache in larger deployments, or that the latter cannot be configured to be just as safe and robust, but for the lone hacker or researcher who just needs a simple web server to serve static files or front FastCGI, OpenBSD's httpd is an excellent fit.
This is a patch. It was sent to a mailing list for review. It has not been committed.<p>Also here's the revised patchset, which is more thorough and changes some config syntax:<p><a href="https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=152763303217829&w=2" rel="nofollow">https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=152763303217829&w=2</a><p><a href="https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=152763343417988&w=2" rel="nofollow">https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=152763343417988&w=2</a> (adds rewrite)<p><a href="https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=152763318517884&w=2" rel="nofollow">https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=152763318517884&w=2</a>
What I really like about this is how short, and readable, the patchset for the feature is.<p>Sure, it lacks tests - and it's had a couple revisions since… but it's something to behold.
I'm hopeful that someday httpd will support adding custom response headers -- for things such as adding a cache-control header.<p>Until then, it seems the recommendation is to run relayd in front of httpd, in order to add such headers.