> > I guess we're missing Nacho's commit that fixes the problem :-) > > Yes, he seemed to have a good idea about what was needed. > > > It seems to be an itch for him - we're just making noise to > encourage > > him to fix it :-) > > Since I was getting curious about what all this was about - > :) - I went and > looked at the code, and it looks as if the header is present, > we're parsing > it for HTTP/1.0 (looks good), but if no port is specified, in > HTTP/1.1 we > default to 80 (or 443), and in HTTP/1.0 we default to the > socket port. It > doesn't look very consistent to me ;-) >
Thanks, Remy, My language impedance is high at times ;), but it looks good now, Sorry for the noise, and thanks for the fix, Larry just now 3.3 has the very same problem i'll try to fix it.. Saludos , Ignacio J. Ortega -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
