The following reply was made to PR protocol/5196; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Marc Slemko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Apache bugs database <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Subject: Re: protocol/5196: Server response missing Header for 400 Bad Request (fwd) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 08:52:22 -0600 (MDT) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:09:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Wade D. Oberpriller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: protocol/5196: Server response missing Header for 400 Bad Request Good point. Yes that makes sense now, and I agree that is the "correct" way to handle that type of malformed request, since the protocol expects the URI to immediately follow the method. Thanks for your quick response. Wade Oberpriller StorageTek 612-424-1538 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
