Responding to a privately sent message since other people might have felt the same. Sorry, but I certainly did not mean to be rude at all. Really! It is not in my interest: I'd like to see yum work with publicfile. If I am rude, I am ignored. Here is my recap: ---Seth tells me that publicfile is broken because it is not http/1.0 compliant, so I go to check, and show the experiment that seems to indicate that publicfile is http/1.0 compliant. ---Mike tells me that instead, the problem is with publicfile's http/1.1 compliance, namely that it does not send content-length. So then I go to the rfc, and I find that if Transfer-Encoding is sent, then Content-Length _must not_ be sent, hence I show the, IMO, appropriate section of the rfc to the list. What else should I have done? By just showing outputs, I was hoping to be to the point, so that I do not waste anybody's time. I viewed yum's behavior as a different issue. Indeed, it is one thing to say that publicfile is not http/1.1 compliant, and it is another thing why yum behaves the way it behaves. So while I responded to one issue (namely, based on rfc2616, publicfile seems to be http/1.1 compliant), I did go to the list archive, and I found that the only way to search it was to download the list mbox---which crashed my mozilla. So I am in the process of trying to figure out how to download and search the archive. Would help if somebody told me the thread or date. Thx, Mate -- --- Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
