> I would have to disagree with whether Host: headers should be required,
> given that the HTTP/1.1 specification explicitly says [RFC2616]:
>
> "All Internet-based HTTP/1.1 servers MUST respond with a 400 (Bad
> Request) status code to any HTTP/1.1 request message which lacks a Host
> header
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 02:22:00PM +0200, Jan Just Keijser wrote:
> ah right, now I see... hmmm 'Host: ...' headers should not be required
> by a web server and with apache's Virtual Hosts you can override this using
I would have to disagree with whether Host: headers should be required,
given
Lars Hupel wrote:
I'm not sure if I understand the question ; openvpn already has the
option to use http/1.1 headers using
--http-proxy-option VERSION 1.1
which should send HTTP/1.1 type messages - doesn't that work?
The problem is that (at least Apache) rejects these requests because
> I'm not sure if I understand the question ; openvpn already has the
> option to use http/1.1 headers using
> --http-proxy-option VERSION 1.1
> which should send HTTP/1.1 type messages - doesn't that work?
The problem is that (at least Apache) rejects these requests because the
Host header is
Lars Hupel wrote:
Hi,
as the subject states, I would like that OpenVPN sends an appropriate
Host header, because my server configuration relies on Apache's
VirtualHosts. Because OpenVPN doesn't send this header, I patched it
myself. Recently, I found the discussion on openvpn-devel from 10/2008
Hi,
as the subject states, I would like that OpenVPN sends an appropriate
Host header, because my server configuration relies on Apache's
VirtualHosts. Because OpenVPN doesn't send this header, I patched it
myself. Recently, I found the discussion on openvpn-devel from 10/2008
(subject was
