Excuse me, but is there anyone caring the topic?<br><br>-----原始邮件-----<br>发件人:"islue" <br>发送时间:2006-07-01 01:34:22<br>收件人:catalyst-dev@lists.rawmode.org<br>抄送:(无)<br>主题:[Catalyst-dev] [RFC] which one is the client ip in X-Forwarded-For?<br><br><br>From doc of Catalyst:<br>$c->req->address is set to the user's real IP address, as read from the HTTP X-Forwarded-For header.<br>From code of Catalyst::Engine::CGI/Apache:<br>Select the most recent upstream IP (last in the list)<br><br>Some substance in RFC:<br>http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec4.html#sec4.2<br>[quote]<br>It MUST be possible to combine the multiple header fields into one<br>"field-name: field-value" pair, without changing the semantics of the<br>message, by appending each subsequent field-value to the first, each<br>separated by a comma.<br>[/quote]<br><br>In my situation, the client ip appears at the head instead of the last<br>in the list. At least, it is the behavior of the proxy server I used.<br>I know, it is not a standard http header field. But if the proxy server<br>obey the rfc, the client ip should be the first one, isn't it?<br>Would the group change behaviour at the point, or I should hack it for<br>my own situation?<br><!-- footer --><br><br><br><br><br><div style="border-bottom:1px solid #999"></div><br>
<font color="black" style="font-size:14.8px">3G 时 代 火 爆 登 场 ，你 的 装 备 齐 了 吗 ？</font>
<br>
<a href="http://www.126.com/" target="_blank" style="font-size:13px;line-height:160%;color:blue">超 大 3G 容 量，免 费 再 送 280 兆 实 用 网 盘、网 络 记 事 本、RSS 阅 读，一 个 也 不 能 少
</a>