Talk:List of HTTP status codes/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

509 Bandwidth Limit Exceeded -- sources?

Looking at 509, it cites "(Apache Web Server/cPanel)", but only has a reference for cPanel. Following that link, it says "Your server reached the bandwidth limit that the system administrator imposed. The only solution for this issue is to wait until the limit resets in the following cycle. To resolve this issue, contact your system administrator."

That sounds like cPanel is giving advice about the server generating the 509, not saying that cPanel generates it itself.

I also had a look through many Apache bandwidth limitation modules, but couldn't find any that actually generate 509, or recommend doing so. As such, I suspect that one of these modules might have done so long ago, but doesn't any more.

Does anyone have an actual reference for software that generates 509 in this manner?

mnot (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sample header for every status code?

just like in Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol#Sample

Maybe just a link to a page of samples? Anyone know of one? If I find them, would it be good to add them?

I love what am going through Betadae996 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Betadae music Betadae996 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

401 unauthorized - cite

Hi, can't edit the page - how's this for a cite regarding the reasons for wrong use in 401 for banned ips? https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/21339/which-http-response-do-you-return-to-a-hit-from-a-blacklisted-ip GrowTHC (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reliable source because it is self-published. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2021

The word "fulfill" is misspelled. 216.81.94.69 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done; there is a small hidden comment in the source code explaining why, although I understand why you didn't notice it. This article is British English, so in particular "fulfil" is a valid spelling. See also WP:ENGVAR. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Decimal codes?

Is there an http error code with a decimal code? I thought i once saw a slashdoted webpage display something like:

                                 5xx.x - too many clients connected to server try again later
                                 Microsoft internet services ver x ( or whatever ms calls their  
                                 webserver

this was a while ago so i'm not sure if i remeber this right, but i was just wondering. Bawolff 05:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFC 1945 defines the response line as follows.

Status-Line = HTTP-Version SP Status-Code SP Reason-Phrase CRLF

The Status-Code element is a 3-digit integer result code of the attempt to understand and satisfy the request. The Reason-Phrase is intended to give a short textual description of the Status-Code. The Status-Code is intended for use by automata and the Reason-Phrase is intended for the human user. The client is not required to examine or display the Reason-Phrase.

So no, there's no decimal code. The status code is used by the client to take an action, e.g. prompt for a password, re-fetch from a different location, etc. If a server output a dodgy code it would confuse the client, though it's worth remembering that what you see in the client is usually a HTML page generated by the server and is part of the body of the response – which doesn't necessarily contain the same status information as it gives to the client in the header.

— Lee J Haywood 19:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

okay. I was just wondering because I thought I saw on once. Bawolff 23:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IIS has different ways of handling the same error depending on how it was caused. It returns the correct status code to the user, however, its default error pages also have sub-codes for explaining the particular circumstances behind an error. While there are numerous 401.x or 403.x pages, officially they are all classed as their respective main class. Chris 00:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

218 This is fine

There is no referece for the existance of this status code and a quick look around turned up nothing. I've deleted it for now, unless anyone can find anything? Was initially added by User:208.240.15.14. Liam McM 15:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Updates for release of rfc-9110

rfc-9110 just released, obsoleting parts of previous rfcs 723x series, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9110#section-1.4. References on this page eventually need to be updated. netjeff (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC 9110 Updates

RFC 9110: HTTP Semantics (rfc-editor.org) has been published as of June 2022. It provides updates to HTTP status codes RFC 9110: HTTP Semantics-Status Codes (rfc-editor.org).

I have not done a full audit but one example is HTTP Code 422, now known as "Unprocessable Content". RFC 9110: HTTP Semantics - 422 (rfc-editor.org) 45.19.51.146 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Why link random articles instead of official rfc?

Linking lifewire for rfc definitions? Thats spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CDA0:1060:CF4:7B68:BAC1:185E (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Just finished extensive cleaning of refs

I just finished extensive cleaning of refs, including

• Updated old rfcs refs to use new rfc 911x series (released June 2022)
• Removed redundant refs to rfc that are not needed, because the intro says: "Unless otherwise stated, the status code is part of the HTTP standard (RFC 9110)."
• Removed refs that repeated content from rfcs, but with no significant clarifications
• Removed refs specific to a particular context (app, framework, etc)

Ref count down from 95 to 56.

With this cleanup, I also removed the 'User-generated' template that warned about "may contain improper references to user-generated content" -- netjeff (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm a teapot.

Would it be appropriate to change the 418 discussion from "is not expected to be" to "is rarely"? I just got a 418 response from https://fapsi.be/api/v2/instance Bill Evans at Mariposa (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Some sites apparently use 418 instead of 403 when blocking a request for some reason. I've added some text mentioning this here and in Hyper_Text_Coffee_Pot_Control_Protocol. I think "is not expected to be" is still better here since the sites using 418 obviously don't actually implement HTCPCP ("is rarely", in my opinion, implies that the sites use this status code appropriately). User94729 (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2023

Change the article link for "Unofficial Code 218" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache (the Native American tribe) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_HTTP_Server (the Apache the article is referring to) Nescio1305 (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Please be advised that LiteSpeed Technologies Inc. is not a web hosting company and, as such, has no control over content found on this site. 27.34.104.17 (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2023

Change the 503 error code category to also include the fact that Mozilla Developer Docs say that this is the error code that should be returned when a coffee/teapot (see code 418) is out of coffee temporarily Natelolzzz (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@ 178.243.107.156 (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As humorous as this is, I think adding the joke information from "418" to the entirely serious description of "503" is probably undue. I could see adding it as a qualification to the description of "418" itself, but it's certainly not an uncontroversial change to be added via an edit request with no discussion. PianoDan (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably would be better if instead of modifying the 503 error section, this was added to the 418 section: It should also be noted that if a coffeepot/teapot is out of coffee, it should return a 503 error, according to the Mozilla Developer Docs (link/ref here) Natelolzzz (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Perhaps it really would be better-placed in 418, but even still, consensus should be reached. I would point out that error 418 is notable by WP standards, but since it seems only Mozilla extends the joke to include 503. Are there any news articles talking about this joke extension? -- Pinchme123 (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Pinchme123 Not that I'm aware of no, I've edited the 418 official page to include this though. Natelolzzz (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

PANO mag withdrew bat 404

PANO mag withdrew bat 404 found 2405:8D40:4C78:48EF:44D3:92FF:FEA2:3715 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello po paki tulong Naman nag withrow ako Hindi dumating sa gcash ko

B@ 49.147.129.138 (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2024

On multiple places are created the same anchor {{anchor|508|Loop Detected|RFC 5842|5842}}, instead of proper status {{anchor|509}}, etc. Statuses:

• 509
• 604
• 605
• 644
• Unofficial 407 - on start of the line is ":" instead of ";", aware 407 is in this list twice!
• Unofficial 770 - on start of the line is ":" instead of ";"
• Unofficial 611 - on start of the line is ":" instead of ";" Kacerd (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done ― novov (t c) 02:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)