I found an interesting problem with squid when submitting a form on a server
running NCSA httpd 1.4.2.
The client (netscape 4.5) submitted a POST HTTP/1.0 request with the header:
Referer: http://www.camcnty.gov.uk/sub/cambserv/pipemail.htm
Proxy-Connection: Keep-Alive
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.34 i686)
Host: www.camcnty.gov.uk
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, image/png, */*
Accept-Encoding: gzip
Accept-Language: en
Accept-Charset: iso-8859-1,*,utf-8
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Content-length: 86
and when squid forwarded it on, the request became:
POST /cgi-bin/con1_form HTTP/1.0
Referer: http://www.camcnty.gov.uk/sub/cambserv/pipemail.htm
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.34 i686)
Host: www.camcnty.gov.uk
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, image/png, */*
Accept-Encoding: gzip
Accept-Language: en
Accept-Charset: iso-8859-1,*,utf-8
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Content-Length: 86
Via: 1.0 webcache.cygnus.co.uk:3128 (Squid/2.1.PATCH1)
X-Forwarded-For: 194.130.39.29
Cache-Control: max-age=604800
Connection: keep-alive
The final line is the interesting one. For a POST request, what use would a
keep-alive have? Why should squid send this?
The thing is that even after 86 characters (the Content-Length) have been
sent, the httpd doesn't return a reply. If I remove the "Connection:
keep-alive", things work as expected.
So whose fault is it? Squid or the NCSA httpd? Probably the latter. But is
POST a useful thing to use with keep-alive anyway? RFC 2068 hardly mentions
keep-alive at all, except in 19.7.1 in the context of backwards
compatibility.
I've got the debug output available if anyone wants other info. The NCSA
server isn't mine, so I can't look at it.
TTFN,
Jifl
-- Cygnus Solutions, 35 Cambridge Place, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 728762 "Women marry hoping their husbands will change, men||Home e-mail: jifl @ marry hoping their wives never do. Both are rare." || jifvik.demon.co.uk Help fight spam! http://spam.abuse.net/ These opinions are all my own faultReceived on Fri Jan 08 1999 - 13:33:44 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:43:56 MST