Re: Serious bug: fou4s v0.11.3 doesn't work on Suse < 9

Lars Ellenberg wrote on Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:10:55 +0200:

> So, the issue seem to be that leo (apache 2.0.49) does NOT include the
>   <Accept-Ranges: bytes
>   <Content-Length: 0
>   <Content-Range: bytes */1716
> information, which gwdg (apache 1.3.27) DOES provide.
> Maybe someone familiar with apache vs. apache can give a hint whether
> this is a apache config problem, a problem with the apache versions,
> a problem with the leo reply being out of spec (non-rfc-conform[tm]) or
> a problem with wget (mis)interpreting the server response.

Hm, I thought I'm familiar with Apache, but ...
Unfortunately, I don't know of any Apache 2.0 servers around, so that one 
could test against them. Anyone knows sites with 2.0? A search on Google 
Groups shows several dozen matches but no useful hints. It occurs mostly 
with wget, but that is just normal, because it provides easy use of that 
-c option. I found that ibiblio.org was mentioned several times as the 
problem target. They don't run 2.x and I wasn't able to repro it against 
them.
BTW: how did you get those logs? Is this a diff against output redirected 
to a file?

> 
> also interesting that both apaches answer a HTTP/1.0 request with a
> HTTP/1.1 reply, but this may be legal :)
>

I think that's ok. I think I remember that 1.0 didn't include the 
hostname, that was only added later as an unofficial extension and then 
put into 1.1. Just a guess, may be wrong. One difference I noted is that 
leo answers with a content-type of text/html to the wget request, but I 
can't see a reason for that from the communciation. Did it send a verbose 
error page?

Kai

-- 

Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org



--