On 5/11/2010 3:04 AM, Alexander Lazarević wrote:
>> So maybe tinyproxy is doing the right thing and the squid proxy is mis
>> configured/broken. But I think it would be great if WebClient could
>> cope with such environments as well as the inferior HTTPSocket does.
>
> I guess the difference comes from tinyproxys ability to behave like a
> transparent proxy and squid playing by the rules, when I do read 5.1.2
> of RFC2616 on HTTP/1.1 correctly:
>
> "The absoluteURI form is REQUIRED when the request is being made to a proxy."

Oh, wow. There's never a shortage on HTTP surprises. I always thought 
that the Host header is sufficient (and it probably is :-) but never 
mind that. In any case, can you test the latest update to WebClient?

BTW, thank you *so much* for testing this with Squid. Proxies are weird, 
finding people who can give this all a good workout is really helpful!

Cheers,
   - Andreas