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
