On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 14:27, Björn Jacke said:
> I talked with Wiktor about the http 1.0 issue in gpg and he also
> mentioned that a number of weird problems that people have reported with
> WKD in the past might be related to gpg talking http 1.0 only.
And what are with those servers which don't
Hello Werner,
On 01.09.20 10:10, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
>> HTTP/1.1 would require support for things that currently may not be
>> present, such as chunked transfer encodings, whereas HTTP/1.0 is
>
> That is for the server site but not for the client. IIRC, the only
> mandatory
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 02:48, Ángel said:
> HTTP/1.1 would require support for things that currently may not be
> present, such as chunked transfer encodings, whereas HTTP/1.0 is
That is for the server site but not for the client. IIRC, the only
mandatory request header for a client has is
On 31.08.20 02:48, Ángel wrote:
> I don't think it's a good idea to block HTTP/1.0 requests. Your system,
> your choice, of course.
as I wrote in my provious mail, it is not uncommon that sites are
blocking HTTP 1.0 these days. So it is not a good idea to only support
HTTP 1.0 in gpg. This makes
On 2020-08-30 at 20:12 +0200, Björn Jacke via Gnupg-users wrote:
> A rule that forbids HTTP 1.0 requests is not uncommon these days. In
> order to make gpg users' experience better I suggest that gnupg
> should not use HTTP 1.0 but at least HTTP 1.1 and also send a user
> agent header. Actually I
Hello Werner,
Hello gnupg community,
I recently implemented WKD and stumbled over a couple of pitfalls with
that. One problem was that after implementing it and watching the server
logs I noticed that a number of WKD related http requests were refused
with HTTP 403. The User-agent string of
