Re: Is forwarding hop-by-hop headers a MUST-level violation?

Alex Rousskov wrote:
> > I wouldn't be surprised to find some old products check for Connection
> > == "close", or !strncmp(connection, "close") if you see what I mean.
> 
> I saw some _new_ products that do that. That is one reason why I am
> not pushing for (2).

Ouch.  Do the products you've seen check for (effectively)
!strcmp (connection, "close") or !strncmp (connection, "close", 5)?

If the former, is transmitting _two_ Connection headers, one of which
is literally "Connection: close", an adequate workaround for those products?

Thanks,
-- Jamie