Re: CRLF requirement

On 2014–07–02, at 8:01 AM, Martin Nilsson <> wrote:
>Also, somehow the word Connection got munged to nnCoection. Never
underestimate the expressive power of old-school C — I’d wager that this is
somehow the result of a typo where the backslash was omitted from “\n” in
the source.

Changing "Connection: close" to "nnCoection: close" is something I have
seen some "zero copy" proxies do when they wanted to remove the connection
header. The theory is you just load a 32 bit "Conn", rotate it 16 bits to
"nnCo", put it back, and rely on the upstream server to ignore it as an
unrecognized header.

That said, it's also something that I haven't seen in a long time, 2009
sounds about right.

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 02:19:02 UTC