Le vendredi 28 novembre 2003 à 07:24, Gisle Aas écrivait:
I would probably implement this with a hash initialized with the know
hop-by-hop headers and then suplemented with the Connection headers.
Then I would use $message-scan() to walk though the headers and then
copy them to either $hop
Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, in the end, I'm just pointing at this problem, asking if it's a
bug or not.
I don't regard this as a bug. It is much safer to keep headers
separated exactly as given and never try to guess which , are real
separators. That gives less
Le vendredi 28 novembre 2003 à 03:00, Gisle Aas écrivait:
Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, in the end, I'm just pointing at this problem, asking if it's a
bug or not.
I don't regard this as a bug.
Thanks for the clarification.
If you don't want to risk ending up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat) writes:
So, should expect hop-by-hop headers to look like:
Connection: Foo, Bar
Foo: This is the foo hop-by-hop header
Bar: This is the bar hop-by-hop header
or more like:
Connection: Foo
Foo: This is the foo hop-by-hop header
