Bug#299801: apache2-common: spurious 304 responses
Package: apache2-common
Version: 2.0.53-4
Severity: important
Apache is occasionally returning 304 responses to standard HTTP
requests. As I understand it, a 304 should only be returned in response
to a conditional GET. However, I am seeing it in response to normal GETs.
For example, I ran the following test:
telnet example.com 80
GET /test.css HTTP/1.0
To my surprise this returned a 304!
I have been trying to gather more information, with relative unsuccess.
But here are some of the trends that I think might be occuring:
- this happens most often on css pages (although I think I remmber
seeing it on other pages)
- lately it only happens when mem_cache is enabled, although I
thought at one point I experienced it with mem_cache disabled
I know that this is not a lot of data to go on, but I have experienced
this problem numerous times, and have not yet been able to narrow the
cause down more precisely. I will try to take more careful notes in the
future.
I would be glad to work with anyone who had some suggestions on debuggin
this.
thanks,
Charles
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (90, 'testing'), (80, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26-1um
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Versions of packages apache2-common depends on:
ii apache2-utils 2.0.53-4 utility programs for webservers
ii debconf 1.4.30.11 Debian configuration management sy
ii debianutils 2.8.4 Miscellaneous utilities specific t
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libdb4.2 4.2.52-18 Berkeley v4.2 Database Libraries [
ii libexpat1 1.95.8-1 XML parsing C library - runtime li
ii libgcc1 1:3.4.3-6 GCC support library
ii libmagic1 4.12-1 File type determination library us
ii mime-support 3.28-1 MIME files 'mime.types' & 'mailcap
ii net-tools 1.60-10 The NET-3 networking toolkit
ii openssl 0.9.7e-2 Secure Socket Layer (SSL) binary a
ii ssl-cert 1.0-11 Simple debconf wrapper for openssl
-- no debconf information
Reply to: