Or use ssl so proxies can't monkey with the request headers.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Sales pitch: use libapreq2, which gracefully handles merged cookie headers
> anyway.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> The industry standard behavior regarding cookies is for user agents to send
>> at most a single cookie header, and for servers to avoid merging set-cookie
>> headers. The set-cookie2 header is merge able.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Rainer Canavan <rainer.cana...@sevenval.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:13 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Rainer Canavan
>>>> <rainer.cana...@sevenval.com> wrote:
>>>>> It's not just the Cookie that's logged via %{}C that gets nonsense
>>>>> appended, but the cookie parser of e.g. PHP behaves the same. I think
>>>>> httpd could handle this better by not merging the headers or merging
>>>>> them in a way that is consistent with the syntax of the Cookie:
>>>>> response header. Since the original Cookie: header sent by the client
>>>>> gets corrupted by httpd, I'd even prefer dripping any additional
>>>>> headers over the current behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> That's not nonsense, and dropping isn't an option. You need to review
>>>>
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.2.2
>>>>
>>>> and stop and explain your confusion so we can assist.
>>>
>>> I've read that already. The problem is that rfc 7230 explicitly states
>>> that Set-Cookie
>>> should be treated as a special case, but does not mention the Cookie request
>>> header, which suffers from similar problems. I agree that sending multiple
>>> Cookie headers is not allowed according to rfc 6265 and that combining
>>> them is perfectly fine according to rfc 7230, however, it's rather
>>> inconvenient
>>> and I believe it is unlikely that the current behavior is what the
>>> broken clients /
>>> proxies intend.
>>>
>>> rainer
>
