Wont-Look-Body: 2147483647
rather than
Wont-Send-Body: 2147483647
It will be
Wont-Look-Body: 0
Agreed. Wont-Send offset semantics (will not send anything up to the
specified point) is going to be different from the Wont-Look semantics
(will not look at anything beyond the specified point). Right?
Yes.
I hope that is OK. If not, we can have more explicit names:
Wont-Look-Body-After:
Wont-Send-Body-Before:
or something of that kind.
Not needed I think.
For clarification:
Wont-Look-Body: 0 is NOT a good value for URL blocking tools. Actually the
Wont-Look-Body parameter for NR cannot be used by URL blocking servies at all
(unless they block all requests).
Reason: Depending on the URL, the service will either send the request back
unchanged or it will short-circuit and send back an error message.
Thus, it will need to wait for the request-header part and then decide whether
it sends a DWO message or a DWLY message.
Because Wont-Look-Body: 0 means to behave as if DWLY is sent for all
transactions, it cannot be used here.
Right?
Martin