On ons, 2008-11-12 at 13:51 -0800, Gregori Parker wrote:
> So, do I need to file a bug report, so that this can get addressed? Or
> are the devs already aware?
The devs are aware (or at least both me and Amos), but please file a bug
report anyway. Much easier for us to track the issue then.
Rega
: [squid-users] parseHTTPRequest problem with SQUID3
Increases in compatibility are in the release notes and ChangeLog
The regression in 0.9 support you hit is a bug.
> Is there any possibility of restoring 0.9 support in Squid3? I can
> always have my load-balancer format the requests to c
>
>> Not fully 1.1, but from (0.9 + 1.0) to fully 1.0 + partial 1.1. Which
> is
>> weird because 2.6 went almost fully 1.0 as well quite a while back.
>
> I wish changes like this were called out in the release notes
Increases in compatibility are in the release notes and ChangeLog
The regression
> Not fully 1.1, but from (0.9 + 1.0) to fully 1.0 + partial 1.1. Which
is
> weird because 2.6 went almost fully 1.0 as well quite a while back.
I wish changes like this were called out in the release notes
> always_direct prevents the requests going through peers. Nothing more.
> if the domain
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
On tis, 2008-11-11 at 15:24 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
Not fully 1.1, but from (0.9 + 1.0) to fully 1.0 + partial 1.1. Which is
weird because 2.6 went almost fully 1.0 as well quite a while back.
From this discussion it seems Squid-3 no longer accepts the obsolete
HTT
On tis, 2008-11-11 at 15:24 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> Not fully 1.1, but from (0.9 + 1.0) to fully 1.0 + partial 1.1. Which is
> weird because 2.6 went almost fully 1.0 as well quite a while back.
From this discussion it seems Squid-3 no longer accepts the obsolete
HTTP/0.9 style requests.
S
> Thanks for your response
>
>> That message means there was no HTTP/1.0 tag on the request line.
>> Squid begins assuming HTTP/0.9 traffic.
>>
>>
>>> Squid 2.6 handled these fine, and my configuration hasnt changed, so
> was
>>> there something introduced in Squid3 that demands a hostname?
>>
>> n
Thanks for your response
> That message means there was no HTTP/1.0 tag on the request line.
> Squid begins assuming HTTP/0.9 traffic.
>
>
>> Squid 2.6 handled these fine, and my configuration hasnt changed, so
was
>> there something introduced in Squid3 that demands a hostname?
>
> no.
Something
> I've just rolled back a failed Squid migration from 2.6 to 3.0, and I'm
> looking for reasons why it failed. I have been successfully using the
> latest Squid 2.6 to http-accel a pool of backend web servers, with a
> load-balancer in front to direct traffic.
>
> The load-balancer hits the squid
