Request rejected by server

[Jon]

I have a web app with two parts. (1) A back end that is accessed from a web browser, and (2) a front end that is accessed by a wireless, mobile PC.

The app works perfectly on the other servers I've tested it in. And also, the back end works fine under LiteSpeed.

However, when I try to connect with the handheld, I get this message:

"Status 400: Unexpected request body 592 bytes for request: <clipped...>"

The handheld communicates with the server by sending XML in the request body, and it looks to me like the LiteSpeed server is rejecting the request because it recognizes it as having and invalid body (the XML). I have turned off everything I can find regarding request filtering.

Any suggestions?

Jon

P.S. This is a Ruby on Rails app, but I posted it in this forum since it appears to be a configuration issue with the server, rather than Ruby.

 

[mistwang]

Looks like your handheld sends a request containing invalid characters or some thing.

Please use tcpdump to dump the request packet and send the output to bug@ ... , we will check if we can address it.

 

[Jon]

Thanks, I will send in the bug report. I don't have any direct control on what request the handheld sends out. The client software on the handheld is made by Genesta for Voice Recognition, and it communicates with the server via XML.

Fortunately, Genesta is pretty good at coming out with quick fixes as well. This is my first experience with LiteSpeed, and I'm quite impressed so far, so hopefully we can get it worked out.

 

[mistwang]

Checked the tcpdump output, the client sent a HTTP GET request with request body, which does not follow HTTP specs. Should use "POST" request method.

 

[Jon]

Unfortunately, the company that makes the handheld voice software is not interested in changing the way the client makes its request. Apache, WEBrick, and IIS do not have a problem with handling the request. I love the LiteSpeed product, and will definitely keep my eye on it, as I would love to use it with our software! I guess I will stick with Apache/Mongrel for now.

Jon