Hi,
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> A very few. Pressure is on them to fix up when they break so it's no
> common fortunately.
Phew. I guess if we needed to I can alter our wpad.dat and policy filter
to dictate direct access to norton updates, though I'd really rather not.
I do see this sort of error in the logs occasionally.
Mar 26 11:17:50 proxy squid[2969]: parseHttpRequest: Invalid HTTP version
Mar 26 11:17:51 proxy squid[2969]: parseHttpRequest: Invalid HTTP version
Mar 26 11:17:54 proxy squid[2969]: parseHttpRequest: Invalid HTTP version
Actually that's from a different proxy server running Debian and
2.6.5-6etch4.
> Part of the HTTP/1.1 spec requires that HTTP/1.0 visitors be accepted
> and dealt with properly. So the sites are in violation by using the 1.1
> moniker when they can't handle critical parts of the spec. (This is one
> of the main reasons Squid still says 1.0).
I see.
>> Is this only in the transparent situation or is it whenever you go through
>> squid? Is there any version of squid which supports HTTP/1.1 or works
>> around this yet?
>
> Squid-2.7 can tell servers it is 1.1, but cannot to the client-side part.
Does it help to tell the server you're using 1.1? Will the server not then
respond using 1.1 features which squid doesn't support?
Gavin
