On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 02:47:09PM +0100, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > i thought i had fixed this in 2012, but apparently i never commited that > diff even though i had oks for it. And i remember we had discussions about > this in the past. >
Well, if it is not in the tree, it does not exist :) Another anedote: I once had a half-working driver for zyd(4), I called it zy(4) but I never committed it, somebody else came and wrote a new driver instead, and I accidentally deleted my code. > The question here is: do we need relayd to block this to protect whatever > application is behind it? Do we gain anything from blocking this request? > Yes, I want to keep relayd as strict as possible. So we can change and extend the list if there is enough evidence but I'm not going to open it up completely. > Anecdotal evidence(*) suggests that no one should rely on DELETE having a > body. > OK, I fixed it with the proposed diff. Reyk
