httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirk.vangu...@jrc.it>
Subject Re: 1.3b8 (fwd)
Date Fri, 29 May 1998 07:33:00 GMT

On Thu, 28 May 1998, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> > I'd rather not have that.  I rather like the very minimal
> > advertising we get from having a Server: header on all our
> > servers... except for those of folks clueful enough to edit
> > source anyhow.
> 
> We probably shouldn't call ourselves "fully HTTP/1.1 compliant,"
> then, since being able to turn off the Server header field emission
> is a SHOULD.  From RFC 2068:

Yup, so we are: RFC2119. 

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
 
But.. One could put a scary line in the doc's saying:

In order to ensure compliance with the HTTP/1.1 standard (as described in
RFC2068.) you are strongly advices against chaning or turning the server
header off. DO Consult this standard document if you do not fully
understand the implications of making changes. 

And in fact this would be warranted; I've noticed that at least one
firewall vendor gives apache slightly more proxy legroom that the 
other servers.

Dw.



Mime
View raw message