Re: [squid-dev] [PATCH] Reject responses with conflicting Content-Length

2015-08-14 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 13/08/2015 3:03 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: On 08/11/2015 11:49 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: Which one of these malformations is not malign ? * non-numeric Content-Length * negative value Content-Length * Content-Length with also Transfer-Encoding header * multiple different-value

Re: [squid-dev] [PATCH] Reject responses with conflicting Content-Length

2015-08-12 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 08/11/2015 11:49 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: Which one of these malformations is not malign ? * non-numeric Content-Length * negative value Content-Length * Content-Length with also Transfer-Encoding header * multiple different-value Content-Length * Content-Length on 204 response

Re: [squid-dev] [PATCH] Reject responses with conflicting Content-Length

2015-08-12 Thread Eliezer Croitoru
+1 on this. I noticed this couple times in couple sites that the '|' was parsed and I had to exception the cases of urls with '|' in them. Eliezer On 12/08/2015 08:49, Amos Jeffries wrote: Which reminds me, if you can get similar details about the AWS software breakage with '|' URI

Re: [squid-dev] [PATCH] Reject responses with conflicting Content-Length

2015-08-11 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 08/10/2015 11:30 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: There is exactly 2 cases of benign malformation: ... All other malformations are *malign*. This is your opinion, not a fact. IMO, being benign cannot be defined by an RFC because that classification depends on real-world circumstances, not just

Re: [squid-dev] [PATCH] Reject responses with conflicting Content-Length

2015-08-11 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 12/08/2015 6:34 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: On 08/10/2015 11:30 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: There is exactly 2 cases of benign malformation: ... All other malformations are *malign*. This is your opinion, not a fact. Which one of these malformations is not malign ? * non-numeric

Re: [squid-dev] [PATCH] Reject responses with conflicting Content-Length

2015-08-10 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 11/08/2015 9:36 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: On 08/07/2015 10:48 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: On 8/08/2015 8:54 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: Squid trusts and forwards the largest Content-Length header. This behavior violates an RFC 7230 MUST in Section 3.3.3 item #4. It also confuses some ICAP

[squid-dev] [PATCH] Reject responses with conflicting Content-Length

2015-08-07 Thread Alex Rousskov
Hello, Squid trusts and forwards the largest Content-Length header. This behavior violates an RFC 7230 MUST in Section 3.3.3 item #4. It also confuses some ICAP services and probably some HTTP clients. With the proposed changes, Squid refuses to forward the message to the ICAP service and

Re: [squid-dev] [PATCH] Reject responses with conflicting Content-Length

2015-08-07 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 8/08/2015 8:54 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: Hello, Squid trusts and forwards the largest Content-Length header. This behavior violates an RFC 7230 MUST in Section 3.3.3 item #4. It also confuses some ICAP services and probably some HTTP clients. With the proposed changes, Squid refuses