It certainly would be nice if we can do that ...sounds like a good
requirement to have.
Lily
-----Original Message-----
From: Reinaldo Penno [mailto:reinaldo_penno(_at_)nortelnetworks(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:09 AM
To: Markus Hofmann
Cc: Yang, Lily L; Mark Nottingham; ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org;
LMM(_at_)acm(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: no-transform & Warning
sorry..
so the callout protocol should be application agnostic. Otherwise we will
need patch it up for every new protocol (RTSP, SMTP and others) or its
updates. And yes, I believe we can make it application agnostic.
regards,
Reinaldo
-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Hofmann [ mailto:markus(_at_)mhof(_dot_)com
<mailto:markus(_at_)mhof(_dot_)com> ]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 10:51 AM
To: Penno, Reinaldo [SC9:T327:EXCH]
Cc: Yang, Lily L; Mark Nottingham; ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org;
LMM(_at_)acm(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: no-transform & Warning
Reinaldo Penno wrote:
You need to understand HTTP 1.1. Sometimes you just want to send the
host: header (request URL filtering). Sometimes the entire payload.
Sometimes you want (for web mail virus scanning), send only
part of a
payload.
The question is whether the callout protocol itself needs "to
understand HTTP", or whether the application logic can be build around
a generic callout protocol.
-Markus