[tbnl-devel] Setting SCRIPT-NAME for strange requests?
Some clients seem to make strange GET requests. Like a "GET http://servername.domain/foo.html HTTP/1.1" where you would expect a "GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1". ASDF-INSTALL was (is?) one of them. And maybe some misconfigured proxy servers (just a guess). Feature request for TBNL: Strip the "http://servername.domain/" part from the URI when constructing SCRIPT-NAME.
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:56:57 +0100, Stefan Scholl <stesch@no-spoon.de> wrote:
Some clients seem to make strange GET requests.
Like a "GET http://servername.domain/foo.html HTTP/1.1" where you would expect a "GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1".
This will not work with HTTP/1.1 as Apache will complain before TBNL has a chance to see the request. But it certainly works with HTTP/1.0.
ASDF-INSTALL was (is?) one of them. And maybe some misconfigured proxy servers (just a guess).
Feature request for TBNL: Strip the "http://servername.domain/" part from the URI when constructing SCRIPT-NAME.
I've uploaded a new version (0.3.5) which implements this and adds the doc fixes you sent privately. Thanks, Edi.
On 2004-12-01 08:32, Edi Weitz wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 02:56:57 +0100, Stefan Scholl <stesch@no-spoon.de> wrote:
Like a "GET http://servername.domain/foo.html HTTP/1.1" where you would expect a "GET /foo.html HTTP/1.1".
This will not work with HTTP/1.1 as Apache will complain before TBNL has a chance to see the request. But it certainly works with HTTP/1.0.
I've tested the HTTP/1.1 request by hand and I got the 404 from TBNL. Apache 1.3.x One really strange thing about this: I received a 404, but the logfiles said 200.
ASDF-INSTALL was (is?) one of them. And maybe some misconfigured proxy servers (just a guess).
Feature request for TBNL: Strip the "http://servername.domain/" part from the URI when constructing SCRIPT-NAME.
I've uploaded a new version (0.3.5) which implements this and adds the doc fixes you sent privately.
OK, thanks. Tested by hand again and I get the requested pages.
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:16:34 +0100, Stefan Scholl <stesch@no-spoon.de> wrote:
I've tested the HTTP/1.1 request by hand and I got the 404 from TBNL. Apache 1.3.x
You're right, my bad. I tested with telnet but forgot to send a Host header.
One really strange thing about this: I received a 404, but the logfiles said 200.
Could you please investigate this? That shouldn't happen, of course. Cheers, Edi.
On 2004-12-01 11:27, Edi Weitz wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:16:34 +0100, Stefan Scholl <stesch@no-spoon.de> wrote:
One really strange thing about this: I received a 404, but the logfiles said 200.
Could you please investigate this? That shouldn't happen, of course.
I don't know if I would stay sane doing so. :-} Let's just forget about it. It was TBNL 0.3.4 and a "strange" request. My code throws the 404 itself; no default-handler. (setf (return-code) +http-not-found+) (throw 'tbnl-handler-done nil) But here it comes: TBNL 0.3.4, current 1.3 Apache (Gentoo), tested with the "strange" request: Reply _and_ logfile say 404. TBNL 0.3.4, older (but with security patches) 1.3 Apache (SuSE 8.1): Reply 404, Logfile 200. Both servers use virtual hosts by name. The config files differ, of course. I really don't want to investigate this. Everything works fine with TBNL 0.3.5. The different return codes were only visible with the "strange" requests. All other non-existant paths were (and are) handled correct: Reply and logfile 404. ... must ..... stop .... thinking ... about ... this ... aaaaaaaa. .... must .... stay .... mentally .... stable ......
participants (2)
-
Edi Weitz -
Stefan Scholl