At 6:16 PM +0200 9/25/02, Graham Leggett wrote: > >The above two cases of brokenness are mutually exclusive. If a non-header is >encountered when a header is expected, we have the choice of either assuming it's a >header and ignoring it, or assuming the headers are over and starting the body. We >cannot do both at the same time.
The patch would do the latter. The sole exception is that if it sees the HTTP/1.1 response again, it ignores that. Otherwise, game over. >What's more there is a feeling out there that it is Apache's responsiblity to "fix" >all the broken servers out there. I believe it is not. It makes sense to be lenient >in what we accept, but to accept any old rubbish given to us is just wrong. > Oh, I agree. See my comments on Bugz 11800. The *only* reason why I'm leaning towards "fixing" that (and that is *not* the right word, since "fix" implies something is broken, which is not the case here) is that 1.3 is, in this case, more robust than 2.0 is. Migration to 2.0 is not an option for those who tickle this bug, and they are "stuck" with 1.3. Simple on that basis is why I created and posted the patch. I agree that we cannot and should not fix or work-around everything that's broken out there, but the 1.3 argument sometimes is enough... -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
