Hiro Dudani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > when I read that WWWOFFLE 2.7 is now available, I was glad to finally > get rid of the Purge-bug that had required regular manual intervention.
I don't know which bug you are refering to, but I am glad that the new version fixed if for you. > But unfortunately, it seems another -at least for me much worse- bug has > crept in. The symptom I first noticed were frequent "Document contains no > data"-popups in Netscape and lots of "broken picture" images. I played > around with the options in wwwoffle.conf [1], but to no avail. I finally > found what I believe to be the problem when I tried talking to the proxy > with Telnet while it was online: > > === > GET http://www.rz.uni-frankfurt.de/index.html HTTP/1.0 > > HTTP/1.0 304 WWWOFFLE Not Modified > Server: WWWOFFLE/2.7 > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:00:55 GMT > Content-type: text/html > Content-Length: 0 > Connection: close > Proxy-Connection: close > === > > Now, I don't claim to know a lot about http, but I don't think that a 304 > should be a valid reply to a request without an "If-modified-since" header, > or is it? You are correct, it is only valid when there is a header like If-Modified-Since or If-None-Match. In the WWWOFFLE code there are three places where the 304 error code can be generated for a reply. One is in messages.l where an If-Modified-Since header is checked against the modification time of the local HTML file, this is not applicable here. In wwwoffles.c there are two places, but each of those can only be executed if there was an If-Modified-Since or If-None-Match header in the request. I don't see any way that the reply that you get can be generated by WWWOFFLE for the input that you give. I have tried it on some example pages and I don't see the problem. > I'm not sure what technical details are relevant here, the OS is Linux > 2.0.36, libc5, the gcc is an ancient 2.7.2.1 and WWWOFFLE was compiled > with zlib and without IPv6 [2]. > Oh, and the requested page did exist in the WWWOFFLE cache, of course. The best that I can suggest is that you run the test again, but with the highest level of debugging enabled 'wwwoffled -d 6 -c wwwoffle.conf'. This will show you the full headers of the request and reply. > [1] BTW, IMVHO the new web pages for editing that are unusable. It takes > far too many clicks to get to and change the setting I want. I found > the old page far easier to use. If you prefered the old page then you are probably somebody who could edit the configuration file manually. The new web pages have advantages: 1) It is impossible to add an entry that makes the file invalid. 2) The comments for the sections and entries are available in translated versions (if README.CONF is translated). 3) They should be usable by people who don't understand or don't want to be bothered by the details of the configuration file. > [2] I had to comment out some lines related to IPv6 in the configure > script, because otherwise it complained that I had specified IPv6- > support but getaddr<orsomething>() is not supported, even when I > explicitly used --without-ipv6. Now, did I break or fix something > by doing that? No, that was OK, it is a bug in the configure script. -- Andrew. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew M. Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/ WWWOFFLE users page: http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/wwwoffle/version-2.7/user.html
