httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <>
Subject Re: PR#77 issue 301 for "foo -> foo/" directory redirects
Date Sun, 02 Feb 1997 03:36:17 GMT
On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Marc Slemko wrote:

> +1.  
> On the topic of redirects... when I access right
> now, I get redirected _FOUR_ times before reaching an actual document.
> Sheesh.

Speaking of makes you wonder if they even know
that there *is* a HTTP/1.0 specification. Take a look at this request
I just tried:


HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/3.0
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 03:27:17 GMT
cache-control: private
Connection: Keep-Alive
Content-Length: 16989
Content-type: text/html
Expires: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 03:27:16 GMT
MC1=GUID=5dab5f9d7ca811d09ac90000f8600b8c&ID=5dab5f9c7ca811d09ac90000f8600b8c; expires=Wed,
15-Sep-1999 19:00:00 GMT;; path=/
Cache-control: private

Wow... Okay. Let's count what's wrong:

1. The returned headers and status code are drastically different than
what happens if I send a GET instead of a HEAD. (it returns a 302 in
that case) c.f. section 8.2 of RFC 1495..

2. It sent me a keep-alive token, even though I didn't send it one
(admittedly, it did not keep the connection open, but...) c.f. section
19.7.1 of RFC 2068.

3. There are two cache-control headers (spelled differently,
too - and an Expires header a second in the past - they really don't
want you caching this document, do they?) I guess this isn't
technically wrong, but... c.f. section 14.9 of RFC 2068.

At any rate, I think returning a 301 is a good idea. If taken
literally, 301 and 410 should never be sent, because at some point in
time, you might want to change it, but I think that if they satisfy
the "If I come back tomorrow, will it still be the same?" test, it's
perfectly okay to use them.

Alexei Kosut <>      The Apache HTTP Server

View raw message