On Sep 20, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Mike Orr wrote:

>>
>> PROPFIND is a webdav method.  Webdav is described in rfc 2518.
>> Maybe this is just a browser trying to mount your server.
>>
>
> But should it be?  If the application is not meant to be WebDAV
> friendly, is there any reason not to send an error and force them to
> use GET?

I agree that the unimplemented method response is appropriate here.
I just meant that these requests might be not be attacks.
Should it be Quixote or an application that restricts the request
method?
What if your application really wants to implement WebDAV?

>> It will be interesting to see how well that works.
>> It seems relatively expensive.
>>
>
> It won't work for huge logs.  The last organization I worked for had
> logs that were 1+ GB compressed.  But normalizing the user agent field
> (or leaving it out) and using a datetime for the date and an int for
> the size should partly offset the overhead.  I've also set an
> expiration of one week for images, and that cut the number of requests
> significantly.

I was thinking that there might be contention at the database level
since this would, I assume, mean frequent writes to the same table.
Maybe that's not a problem, though.