Re: [squid-users] Squid, Symantec LiveUpdate, and HTTP 1.1 versus HTTP 1.0

Gavin McCullagh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Marcus Kool wrote:
>
>> The story about Squid and HTTP 1.1 is long...
>>
>> To get your LiveUpdate working ASAP you might want to
>> fiddle with the firewall rules and to NOT redirect
>> port 80 traffic of Symantec servers to Squid, but
>> simply let the traffic pass.
>
> We're running the squid version packaged for Ubuntu Hardy
> (2.6.18-1ubuntu3). We run it in as both an explicitly configured and as a
> transparent proxy.
>
> I hadn't realised the lack of HTTP/1.1 in squid would break websites. Are
> there many such websites?

A very few. Pressure is on them to fix up when they break so it's no
common fortunately.

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).

>
> 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.

Amos

-- 
Please be using
   Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE6 or 3.0.STABLE13
   Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.6