Jason R. Coombs <jar...@jaraco.com> added the comment:
Thanks for all the comments. I agree the current (secure by default) implementation is desirable. I also agree that such usage was never explicitly supported, so the "regression" here is perhaps over-stated. What I seek is to avoid the Go recommendation of "fork the implementation" when a lightweight hook could be provided as a means to achieve a reasonable, if unusual and discouraged, behavior. In particular, I'd like to support: Sending a single request with invalid bytes for the path. Allowing all requests for a client to support invalid bytes on the path. Ideally, the solution should allow sending other non-control bytes as well, supporting the use case reported in issue36274 also. I'll draft a patch. I'll try to get to it this weekend, but if I don't, don't feel like this needs to block releases. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue38216> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
