Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 08:21:38 +0100 (BST)
From: James Sutherland <jas88@cam.ac.uk>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Subject: Re: HTTP Protocol question
In-Reply-To: <20010508233055.A11101@trainedmonkey.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.33.0105090818180.4841-100000@green.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: James Sutherland <jas88@hermes.cam.ac.uk>

On Tue, 8 May 2001, Jim Winstead wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 06:27:49AM +0100, James Sutherland wrote:
> > Particularly if the thin client is intended to be used with their own ISP
> > only, talking via their proxy server? They are clearly violating the RFC
> > here, but it may not matter in this case - for that matter, it could even
> > be deliberate? (Unlikely, I suspect, but possible...)
>
> i would assume it is deliberate. that doesn't mean they can claim
> that their client supports http/1.0 when it doesn't.

"Never ascribe to maliciousness that which can adequately be explained by
stupidity" :-)

I'd call it an HTTP/1.0 implementation with a very nasty bug: I haven't
read the 1.0 RFC recently, but I doubt it says anywhere "all clients are
REQUIRED to be completely bug-free" - I'm sure if we looked hard enough,
there are still cases where the httpd responds incorrectly in some way...

> they can certainly claim it supports a subset of http/1.0. or a
> protocol that is kind-of-but-not-quite-http/1.0. but someone (hi
> roy) bothered to write down the standard for a reason. :)

Yep - it's a nasty bug they should fix pronto, but unless/until there's
more "evidence", I wouldn't go thinking it's a malicious bug...


James.
-- 
The difference between Microsoft and 'Jurassic Parc':
In one, a mad businessman makes a lot of money with beasts that should be
extinct.
The other is a film.