From 71974c24bbd31e4295b366eeea245131e8a9dc21 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: 
 "https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlqWSY9PNYRysA9vrU-JiQh7-s7q6SOcIE"
 <Fergus@web>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:32:03 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Chatter

---
 doc/bugs/Running_on_an_alternative_port_fails.mdwn | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/bugs/Running_on_an_alternative_port_fails.mdwn b/doc/bugs/Running_on_an_alternative_port_fails.mdwn
index 006c27232..942700ba3 100644
--- a/doc/bugs/Running_on_an_alternative_port_fails.mdwn
+++ b/doc/bugs/Running_on_an_alternative_port_fails.mdwn
@@ -81,5 +81,13 @@ index 73689be..039b7e3 100644
 
 -- fergus
 
+---
+
 I've gone ahead and filed a bug on CGI.pm too:
 <https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=72678> --[[Joey]] 
+
+---
+
+That'll be an interesting discussion as I'd suggest that HTTP_ headers are defined in the CGI specification as client headers and thus what `thttpd` is doing is wrong (i.e. mangling the client's own representation).  Whether a CGI client should trust HTTP_ header over the server is probably already settled by convention.
+
+-- fergus
-- 
2.26.2