fre 2010-04-09 klockan 12:29 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries: > I though Squid considered it a malformed 206 and uncachabled it. It's not a 206 response. Not that it really differs a lot.. > Does squid consider the reply a malformed 206 or a malformed 200? > The extra bytes which exist in the body means we should be assuming its > a malformed 200 with unusable range headers. Yes. If there is more data than Content-Length indicates then the response is malformed and should not get cached. > Server may or may not provide a real range or this same output. And we don't know. > Regardless of that any client being smart and fetching the request as a > range of the indicated range bytes from a full copy of the object will > get different bytes from any intermediary than this reply contains. You mean from this unexpectedly ranged object, or from the object without fs= parameter? Range requests on the object without fs= parameter is just as normal. Nothing strange to discuss there. Any differences in the object data in Ranged responses with an fs= parameter is irrelevant to that object. We don't know how the server would react on Range requests to this ranged fs=.. object. Maybe it imlpements them, maybe it don't. You are very right that the likelyhood that any intermediary caches (i.e. squid etc) caching this unexpectedly ranged response MAY react strangely to Range requests on the same. Regards Henrik
