[Mongrel] Invalid HTTP format, parsing fails
ross.singer at library.gatech.edu
Fri Aug 25 23:01:48 EDT 2006
Also, I think I want to reiterate at this point about how resolution on this
is not as pressing for me anymore. You're right about the fcgi thing.
So... I guess take this however you want :)
On 8/25/06, Ross Singer <ross.singer at library.gatech.edu> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, Zed Shaw <zedshaw at zedshaw.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 20:08 -0400, Ross Singer wrote:
> > > Zed,
> > >
> > > Thanks for getting back to me on this.
> > >
> > > Here is the log from the offending request:
> > >
> > <snip>
> > > Is this what you were looking for?
> > Yep I'll look at that. But right from the RFC you have this:
> > unsafe = (CTL | " " | "\"" | "#" | "%" | "<" | ">");
> > Even they label that as "unsafe" so I'm going to be hard pressed to
> > allow this in.
> Again, I wouldn't say I'm opposed to this. :)
> All I'm sayin' "Real World Scenario". Also "85% browser market share".
> I can probably talk EBSCO into fixing their bad URLs, but I don't have any
> control over Internet Explorer or Microsoft. I've got no influence there.
> I'm not trying to be passive-aggressive at all about this (I really want
> to stress that), I'm just stating that this is something that's bound to
> come up again.
> Because IE sucks. I guess Safari does too.
> But good lord a lot people use them.
> Zed A. Shaw
> http://www.lingr.com/room/3yXhqKbfPy8 -- Come get help.
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mongrel-users