ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2000 by date

Tuesday, 28 March 2000

• 1.1 proxy interaction with 1.0 client and bad EOF behavior Patrick McManus

Thursday, 23 March 2000

• Re: Proxies and incorrect Content-Length Jeffrey Mogul
• A Typical HTTP Problem Vivek

Monday, 20 March 2000

• Unidentified subject! Pae Choi
• Proxies and incorrect Content-Length Miles Sabin

Saturday, 18 March 2000

• Last Call on delta encoding in HTTP/1.1 Balachander Krishnamurthy

Wednesday, 15 March 2000

• Re: Proxies, Request-URI, and digest-uri Joe Orton

Tuesday, 14 March 2000

• RE: user agent header question Larry Rufo
• Proxies, Request-URI, and digest-uri Joe Orton
• user agent header question Denis A. Doroshenko

Monday, 13 March 2000

• Re: HTTP Age Header Field (Section 14.6) - should overflow value be 2^31 or (2^31)-1? Mark Nottingham
• Re: HTTP Age Header Field (Section 14.6) - should overflow value be 2^31 or (2^31)-1? Matthew Delco
• Re: HTTP Age Header Field (Section 14.6) - should overflow value be 2^31 or (2^31)-1? John Stracke

Saturday, 11 March 2000

• HTTP Age Header Field (Section 14.6) - should overflow value be 2^31 or (2^31)-1? Matthew Delco

Thursday, 9 March 2000

• HTTP traffic statistics Jordi Ros

Wednesday, 8 March 2000

• Two newish technical reports based on an HTTP trace Jeffrey Mogul

Sunday, 27 February 2000

• HTTP Henry Johnston

Friday, 25 February 2000

• Re: Testing web server speed M. Drew Streib
• Testing web server speed Jordi Ros
• Requirements Summary Mark Nottingham

Monday, 14 February 2000

• IETF Adelaide and interim meetings for APPS WGs Keith Moore

Sunday, 6 February 2000

• Re: cookies patent Volsinians@aol.com
• Re: cookies patent Phillip Hallam-Baker
• Re: cookies patent Roy T. Fielding

Saturday, 5 February 2000

• cookies patent Roy T. Fielding

Friday, 4 February 2000

• RE: Chunked sample message Scott Lawrence
• Chunked sample message ujros

Thursday, 3 February 2000

• Re: If-Modified-Since implementation question Julien Pierre
• Re: If-Modified-Since implementation question David W. Morris
• If-Modified-Since implementation question Julien Pierre

Wednesday, 2 February 2000

• Re: HTTP entity length Roy T. Fielding
• Re: HTTP entity length Roy T. Fielding
• RE: HTTP entity length Scott Lawrence
• Re: HTTP entity length jordi ros
• Re: protocol verification Balachander Krishnamurthy
• protocol verification Joakim G.

Tuesday, 1 February 2000

• Re: HTTP entity length Patrick McManus
• HTTP entity length jordi ros

Wednesday, 26 January 2000

• Re: Two questions Koen Holtman

Tuesday, 25 January 2000

• Re: On pipelining -Reply -Reply Julien Pierre

Monday, 24 January 2000

• Re: Two questions Fred Bohle

Sunday, 23 January 2000

• Two questions Tim Chao

Friday, 21 January 2000

• RE: On pipelining -Reply -Reply Larry Masinter
• Re: On pipelining -Reply Christopher K. St. John
• Re: On pipelining -Reply -Reply David W. Morris
• Re: On pipelining -Reply -Reply Daniel Hellerstein
• RE: On pipelining -Reply Miles Sabin
• Re: On pipelining -Reply Christopher K. St. John
• RE: On pipelining -Reply Miles Sabin
• RE: On pipelining -Reply Daniel Hellerstein
• Idempotent sequences of methods Miles Sabin
• RE: On pipelining Larry Masinter
• RE: On pipelining Scott Lawrence
• RE: On pipelining Miles Sabin
• Re: On pipelining Fred Bohle
• On pipelining Daniel Hellerstein
• Re: Browser support for request pipelining Yngve N. Pettersen
• RE: Browser support for request pipelining Miles Sabin
• RE: Browser support for request pipelining Scott Lawrence
• RE: Browser support for request pipelining Miles Sabin
• Re: Browser support for request pipelining Patrik Winroth
• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Eric D. Williams

Thursday, 20 January 2000

• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Josh Cohen
• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Eric D. Williams
• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Dave Kristol
• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Larry Masinter
• Browser support for request pipelining Miles Sabin
• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? David W. Morris
• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Scott Lawrence
• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Eric D. Williams
• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Peter W
• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Josh Cohen
• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Eric D. Williams
• Re: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 19 January 2000

• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Scott Lawrence
• RE: webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Eric D. Williams
• webmail vulnerabilities: a new pragma token? Peter W
• test mail dont read this 서정국

Wednesday, 12 January 2000

• HTTP/proxy calls nate

Thursday, 6 January 2000

• draft-ietf-tls-http-upgrade reissued Scott Lawrence

Wednesday, 5 January 2000

• unsubscribe Vani

Thursday, 6 January 2000

• (no subject) opportunities45@eastmail.com

Monday, 3 January 2000

• Re: server parsing of URI path parameters Roy T. Fielding
• RE: server parsing of URI path parameters Scott Lawrence

Last message date: Tuesday, 28 March 2000 08:13:24 UTC