You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> on 2001/08/10 10:01:46 UTC
Re: RFC2616
Yulya Blyakh wrote:
> telnet www.ukrbiz.net 80
> ......
> GET / HTTP/1.0
>
> HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
> In response, I get 400 error, and it seems that APACHE doesn't know how to
> process my inquiry.
Apache is giving you the correct response to this request.
> GET / HTTP/1.0
> Host: www.ukrbiz.net
I am not entirely sure what your question is though.
GET / HTTP/1.0 on it's own violates RFC2616, and the 400 Bad Request you
are getting is the correct response.
GET / HTTP/1.0
Host: www.ukrbiz.net
is the correct way to do it - a missing Host header will cause an error.
Regards,
Graham
--
-----------------------------------------
minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
over Bourbon Street
tonight..."
Re: RFC2616
Posted by Jerry Baker <je...@weirdness.com>.
Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> GET / HTTP/1.0 on it's own violates RFC2616, and the 400 Bad Request you
> are getting is the correct response.
>
> GET / HTTP/1.0
> Host: www.ukrbiz.net
>
> is the correct way to do it - a missing Host header will cause an error.
>
> Regards,
> Graham
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> minfrin@sharp.fm "There's a moon
> over Bourbon Street
> tonight..."
No it shouldn't. HTTP 1.0 does not require host headers. Host headers
are only required to correctly identify name-based virtual hosts anyway.
--
Jerry Baker
PGP Key: http://www.jerrybaker.org/pgp.html
LAME MP3 Encoder Binaries: http://www.jerrybaker.org/lame/
Apache 2.0 Web server Installer: http://www.jerrybaker.org/apache/