On 08/10/2015 11:30 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > There is exactly 2 cases of benign malformation: ... > All other malformations are *malign*.
This is your opinion, not a fact. IMO, being "benign" cannot be defined by an RFC because that classification depends on real-world circumstances, not just syntax rules. An RFC can require action X when a header is malformed, of course. We ought to follow that recommendation except if doing X breaks too many benign real-world cases. If the latter happens, we may want to give admin a choice. All of that complexity and decision making is outside this thread scope. >> For the record, here is a Bing server response that prompted this change: >> >>> HTTP/1.1 206 Partial Content >>> Cache-Control: public, max-age=15552000 >>> Content-Length: 14543 >>> Content-Type: application/x-javascript; charset=utf-8 >>> Last-Modified: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 01:35:04 GMT >>> Vary: Accept-Encoding >>> Server: Microsoft-IIS/8.5 >>> Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:42:26 GMT >>> Content-Length: 300 >>> Content-Range: bytes 14243-14542/14543 >>> Accept-Ranges: bytes >> >> As you can see, the addition of an extra Content-Length field was >> probably triggered by the partial response to the Range request. > Is that an IIS? Bing? or ICAP server bug? AFAIK, the quoted header did not come from the ICAP server under Squid control. I believe it came from some Bing server, but I do not know the details. The reasons I mentioned that header here is to document that the problem is happening right now, possibly on a relatively popular site, and may involve a relatively complex combination of headers. HTH, Alex. _______________________________________________ squid-dev mailing list squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
