On 04/16/2012 11:58 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
mån 2012-04-16 klockan 09:40 -0300 skrev Marcus Kool:
The idea itself is good. The problem is that it is very different
than what the ICAP RFC states.
Is it?
A list of file extensions that ...
It says "file extensions". What is a "file"?
In my mind the closest to "file" is what you get on your harddrive when
you download something, and there is no direct map url -> file
extension. The file extension is derived from a combination of
content-type, content-disposition and URL.
I think we agree that "file extension" is an inappropriate term in
this context.
I agree that it would be more suitable to ignore transfers to the
ICAP server based on Content-Type.
However, looking at the RFC where the example uses "asp, bat, exe, com, ole"
it seems that the authors of the RFC were thinking of a URL-based "suffix",
not content-type.
I think that the negation of filtering
based on Content-Type should use a new parameter, e.g. Ignore-Content-Type.
That's a useful replacement.
Regards
Marcus