On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:48:15PM -0800, David Birdsong wrote: >> i see that POST is a valid httpchk parameter, but without ripping >> twisted apart, i'm not sure how it could allow an empty POST through >> to code that could return a 200 or 204. >> >> has anybody already gone through this? > > Never tested, but right now you can still post contents and headers, > though it's a ugly hack. It consists in appending the headers and > data after the HTTP version : > > option httpchk POST /something HTTP/1.0\r\nContent-length:\ > 7\r\n\r\nfoo=bar > i was wondering if contents were allowed after the headers. i'll give it a shot.
> I told you it was ugly :-) > > You may also have to specify a Host: header depending on your > service, and maybe even a content-type. Find about it by trial > and error. Please post your findings on the list, as I'm sure > other people might be interested too. > > Regards, > Willy > >
