Re: Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 allow bogus Content-Length?

["Adrien de Croy" <[e-mail]>]

I wonder if it's the same guy.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[e-mail]>
To: "Loïc Hoguin" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Adrien de Croy" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" 
<[e-mail]>
Sent: 15/02/2017 10:11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 allow bogus Content-Length?

>--------
>In message <[e-mail]>, 
>=?UTF-8?Q?Lo=c3=afc_Hoguin?= writes:
>
>>     4.  If a message is received without Transfer-Encoding and with
>>         either multiple Content-Length header fields having differing
>>         field-values or a single Content-Length header field having an
>>         invalid value,
>
>Last year, I think, I have had some dude claim that a "valid value"
>was a sequence of digits, but that there is no explicit requirement
>that it match the length of the body of that request.
>
>I told him to get stuffed.
>
>--
>Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
>[e-mail]         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
>FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
>Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by 
>incompetence.