Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 87956 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2009 15:22:55 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Sep 2009 15:22:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 94096 invoked by uid 500); 28 Sep 2009 15:22:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 94016 invoked by uid 500); 28 Sep 2009 15:22:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 94007 invoked by uid 99); 28 Sep 2009 15:22:54 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:22:54 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 32.97.110.149 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of poirier@pobox.com) Received: from [32.97.110.149] (HELO e31.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.149) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:22:43 +0000 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n8SFG4fY023691 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:16:04 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n8SFMEvO215622 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:22:16 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n8SFMEQ5004252 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:22:14 -0600 Received: from slappy.raleigh.ibm.com (slappy.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.243.169]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n8SFMCkB004063; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:22:13 -0600 From: Dan Poirier To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Logging or not logging 408's User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (darwin) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:22:12 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Apache 1.3 logged a 408 in the access log if a connection was received but no request was received before the timeout. Apache 2.x does not. If a partial request is received, a 400 is logged, but if nothing is received, it silently closes the connection when it times out. Logging of 408's might be useful to notice if someone is making malicious requestless connections to attack the server, and identifying the IP address of the client. Is there some good reason not to log the 408's in this case? (This is also mentioned in PR39785, https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39785) Thanks, -- Dan Poirier