If images ever become a problem, we can just turn off uploads.

we could also ban touhou

sorry. i have failed in my responsibilities as CEO of jstpst.

they seem to be telling me that, yes.

also a month ago they coincidentally wanted to register "raddle" as a trademark, too. very unfortuate that every trademark they want to register is already in use by a postmill site.

thank you, i was looking for something new to watch

you gotta lick the goo

ok so i've looked into this, and on a postmill instance that uses cloudflare + nginx, i cannot reproduce the issue, it seems to work fine. i can only imagine it's a problem between caddy and whatever http client newsblur uses.

this is a yukkuri with no body

also known as a yukkuri

that's right

twodrive

maybe later

wow, that's like two funny numbers in one

turkish "delight"

i don't think that's desirable. this is one esoteric browser setting i'm not willing to make concessions for.

just like me

have you considered a contemporary crouton?

but rereading the spec, you're supposed to send a 505 in the representation used by the major version requested by the client

GET / HTTP/2.0 is parsed with http/1 semantics, so i think it makes sense to give any >= 2.x version the HTTP/1.1 505 treatment.

An HTTP/2 request can be sent without negotiation; this is how h2c (HTTP/2 over cleartext) reliably works for me (for some reason I couldn't get Upgrade from http/1.1 to h2c working). It's called "prior knowledge", and curl supports this.

yeah, but as the name implies, you somehow know in advance that the server's gonna accept HTTP/2 if you send those. i suppose 505 here would make sense, if the HTTP/2 support was ever removed. as i understand it, this mode is never going to happen under normal browsing, though.

No, 505 wouldn't be useful because an HTTP/2 request to an HTTP/1-only server would only result in the client just closing the connection itself. You can see this by using nghttp or curl --http2-prior-knowledge against a server that only supports HTTP/1

An HTTP/2-only client (which those two commands earlier are) would not bother to process an HTTP/1 response (if it even gets one) whether that'd be a 505 or 200.

i meant a hypothetical http/2 that's more http/1-like, not the actual http/2 that came into existence which made it very hard to accidentally use the wrong protocol.

anyway, the solution to your woes is apparently to send an error packet or whatever:

HTTP_1_1_REQUIRED (0x0d):
The endpoint requires that HTTP/1.1 be used instead of HTTP/2.

it sounds like it does what you want, but i have no idea if this applies on the stream or the connection level or what.

I mean the same applies if an HTTP/1 response is a 505, right..?

no, since http/1 requests are sent preemptively without knowing if the server accepts them. http/2+ requests are sent after negotiation, at which point it's established they are accepted. this obsoletes the need for a 505.

505 would have been useful for a future where http/2 requests might be preemptively sent to http/1-only servers. if i send GET / HTTP/2.0 (or any non-1.x version) to nginx, it indeed responds with that status code. but as things turned out, the negotiation mechanism in http/2+ just sidesteps this problem altogether, so 505 ends up being little more than a relic from a time when people didn't know what the future of http held.

since you very much have to opt in for http/2+, incompatibilities with it can be resolved by just not enabling it, and the use cases where one would want partial http/2 support on any given host are extremely contrived, i would argue it's a good thing that support for it is declared on the connection level. it's one less special case for clients to deal with.

hey, that's rude. it's not marc andreessen's fault he looks like that.

if a server is able to serve an http response as http/2 and/or http/3, then by definition it supports http/2 and/or http/3, despite the status code's claim of the contrary.

but sadly, there are no funny ones.

i beg to differ. 320 blaze it.

it's engagement bait so people post about it.

that's when the good videos were uploaded

'joke's on you, i knew about the vulnerability all along'

nice one, matt

sounds like a disgusting video. please share the link so i can learn to avoid it.

i would simply have written my program in a language that had all the features i wanted.