<lurk state="off"/> Pardon me for butting in here, but as someone who is building a product based in part upon Apache/mod_proxy, I *strongly* agree with Graham. I've had to hack the mod_proxy code more than once to deal with this issue, and I'd rather not have to. I agree that it should be entirely up to any modifying filter to be responsible for Content-Length changes. The proxy itself should, IMHO, be always be considered a non-modifying passthough (with the obvious exception of proxy-specific HTTP headers, which Content-Length is not).
- Dave <lurk state=="on"/> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Leggett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 5:26 AM Subject: Re: mod_proxy and Content-Length > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Problems with 2.0.42 and mod_proxy with Content-Length: > > > > - 2.0.39 stripped C-L from all HTTP/1.0 responses. > > - 2.0.40 retained C-L on HTTP/1.0 responses for GETs, but stripped it > > for HEAD. > > - 2.0.42 strips C-L from all HTTP/1.0 responses. > > > > Do people think that the 2.0.42 behaviour (stripping C-L from all > > HTTP/1.0 responses) is correct? The messages referenced below would > > suggest not, but .42 has reverted to .39's behaviour. > > I don't think proxy should touch content-length at all. > > If a filter fiddles with content length, then it should be responsible > for removing the content-length header as needed so that it can be > readded later. > > Proxy doesn't change content-length in itself - so it really has no > business touching it. > > Regards, > Graham > -- > ----------------------------------------- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's a moon > over Bourbon Street > tonight..." > >
