From dev-return-11085-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Thu Aug 05 09:30:17 2010
Return-Path: <dev-return-11085-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 65998 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2010 09:30:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 5 Aug 2010 09:30:16 -0000
Received: (qmail 8958 invoked by uid 500); 5 Aug 2010 09:30:16 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org
Received: (qmail 8558 invoked by uid 500); 5 Aug 2010 09:30:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@couchdb.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@couchdb.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@couchdb.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.couchdb.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received: (qmail 8549 invoked by uid 99); 5 Aug 2010 09:30:12 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:30:12 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bchesneau@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.52 as permitted sender)
Received: from [74.125.83.52] (HELO mail-gw0-f52.google.com) (74.125.83.52)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:30:06 +0000
Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20so3483221gwj.11
        for <dev@couchdb.apache.org>; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 02:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=2b/v2LZv2GYEWcXRqcA5R6R8zK4/DeR3IQpx0eDwWaI=;
        b=PdKKiPeTbEkPDy0ogqMLbIWMUIt9pBOP2abM5nU6tOsdBAS9eE/tCYYvyRQlXKBxGx
         vs5xJ+Imkwe9LpCHeXHsWh8ROveTMyle4eq0n0GpH4LK2gSEHM0Xcd3KJIkkWT8CmZHV
         L99buxuqmr/+GBvzBuRSlizMn1dgR00chB8Ag=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=ITIa4iO3EEzokRJgR7N/vZrscmT3mIgEixXOBmgTHZMsUz7lAqnvbindSf3F+jYtGT
         dyWrA7FuJvV6s/ZHtvmeB7zlgdVhTEqdCgHNURYk3E3VWayZN0miQBZvXjrVpoQVjg1B
         Z8OXZD9th7RDBe7jnDW8iH/ylUaY3Boh/f5kU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.174.206 with SMTP id u14mr11999890ibz.103.1281000584988; 
	Thu, 05 Aug 2010 02:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.172.4 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 02:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:29:44 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=FeaVGGuG3gFd5h4YNuwuSpF=cA=QKFUgDiZDk@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: strange behaviour with empty POST
From: Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi all,

When working with couchdbkit this morning I noticed that empty POST
without Content-Type "application/json" aren't accepted any more
(tested on compact , view cleanup and ensure_full_commit). Which is a
little weird, why should I set a content-type when the body is empty ?
Is there any reason for that ? I bet this new behavior was introduced
with  the security fix.

Let me know I may have a patch for that.

- benoit