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

Hi,

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Amos Jeffries wrote:

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

Phew. I guess if we needed to I can alter our wpad.dat and policy filter
to dictate direct access to norton updates, though I'd really rather not.
I do see this sort of error in the logs occasionally.

Mar 26 11:17:50 proxy squid[2969]: parseHttpRequest: Invalid HTTP version
Mar 26 11:17:51 proxy squid[2969]: parseHttpRequest: Invalid HTTP version
Mar 26 11:17:54 proxy squid[2969]: parseHttpRequest: Invalid HTTP version

Actually that's from a different proxy server running Debian and
2.6.5-6etch4.

> 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).

I see.

>> 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.

Does it help to tell the server you're using 1.1? Will the server not then
respond using 1.1 features which squid doesn't support?

Gavin
Received on Thu Mar 26 2009 - 12:12:33 MDT