Lars Hupel wrote:
> When thinking about it, the Host header doesn't make any sense to me.
It was added to support virtual hosting in a time (20? years ago)
when the domain name wasn't included anywhere in the request, but
used only for client-side IP-adress lookup. Back then it was a
reasonable as
>> Yep. It's a bit redundant, but consider that CONNECT is already the
>> odd kid among the HTTP verbs. Most other verbs only take an absolute
>> path URI, without host component.
>
> On the other hand, in a proxy context the host component is always
> present even for the other methods. ("The ab
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 02:38:40AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Lars Hupel wrote:
> > > Current behavior is correct. The first one is what should be sent.
> > > [...]
> > > Actually it is helpful. It says that *the resource being requested as
> > > obtained from the original URI given by the user* i
Lars Hupel wrote:
> > Current behavior is correct. The first one is what should be sent.
> > [...]
> > Actually it is helpful. It says that *the resource being requested as
> > obtained from the original URI given by the user* is what should be
> > sent. This is the "remote" parameter and nothing e
> Current behavior is correct. The first one is what should be sent.
> [...]
> Actually it is helpful. It says that *the resource being requested as
> obtained from the original URI given by the user* is what should be
> sent. This is the "remote" parameter and nothing else.
So what you're implyin
