Re: processing of ICAP Transfer-Ignore options

On 04/16/2012 11:58 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> mån 2012-04-16 klockan 09:40 -0300 skrev Marcus Kool:
>
>> The idea itself is good. The problem is that it is very different
>> than what the ICAP RFC states.
>
> Is it?
>
> A list of file extensions that ...
>
> It says "file extensions". What is a "file"?
>
> In my mind the closest to "file" is what you get on your harddrive when
> you download something, and there is no direct map url -> file
> extension. The file extension is derived from a combination of
> content-type, content-disposition and URL.

I think we agree that "file extension" is an inappropriate term in
this context.
I agree that it would be more suitable to ignore transfers to the
ICAP server based on Content-Type.

However, looking at the RFC where the example uses "asp, bat, exe, com, ole"
it seems that the authors of the RFC were thinking of a URL-based "suffix",
not content-type.

>> I think that the negation of filtering
>> based on Content-Type should use a new parameter, e.g. Ignore-Content-Type.
>
> That's a useful replacement.
>
> Regards
Marcus
Received on Mon Apr 16 2012 - 15:34:25 MDT