Timeline for Stack Overflow returning HTTP error code 418 (I'm a teapot)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2021 at 6:47 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc with https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc
|
|
| Nov 29, 2019 at 12:03 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | Not sure APIs are the right place for jokes. | |
| Nov 28, 2019 at 23:55 | comment | added | OrangeDog | A strange decision. 403 Forbidden is standard and usual for an authenticated user trying to do something that's syntactically and semantically valid but you're not allowed. Of course in this case you're preventing the authenticated user from being tricked into doing something by a malicious third party. There's nothing to fix and it should not be repeated. | |
| Nov 28, 2019 at 18:51 | history | edited | terdon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typo
|
| Nov 1, 2017 at 9:07 | comment | added | balpha StaffMod | @Blacksilver No Apache here. | |
| Oct 31, 2017 at 16:17 | comment | added | SIGSTACKFAULT | @balpha how did you get Apache (I assume you use apache) to return 418? | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 6:18 | comment | added | Kevin | @TRiGisTimothyRichardGreen: IIRC the relevant RFC says that the body MAY be short and stout, so it's not a requirement of the standard. | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 1, 2014 at 20:42 | comment | added | jpmc26 | @balpha I think it's safe to treat 400 as an "other" 400 code in practice, much like 500 is, "some error happened and no other 500 code is appropriate." There really needs to be some kind of catch all for "this request was bad and no other code is appropriate"; if it's not 400, what is it? | |
| Nov 7, 2014 at 17:33 | comment | added | Brilliand | @balpha Wikipedia's description is way off, then... I'd better fix that. | |
| Nov 7, 2014 at 5:52 | comment | added | balpha StaffMod | @Brilliand The definition of a 400 is "The request could not be understood by the server due to malformed syntax." That is not at all appropriate here; the request isn't malformed. It's just missing a correct parameter. | |
| Nov 7, 2014 at 4:37 | comment | added | Brilliand | I think error code 400 is appropriate here: "I refuse to process this request and I think it's your fault." | |
| Apr 29, 2014 at 18:48 | comment | added | Arjan | Just in case it matters: I just got the same error a few times when commenting and voting (here), even after a page refresh. I doubt I should have been running into CSRF issues, but Chrome's network tab revealed "Sorry, your request could not be completed because it looked suspicious. If you meant to perform an action on Super User, please return to the previous page and try again.", after I already refreshed. (Meanwhile the comment succeeded, the vote still did not, but that's not a problem.) | |
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:50 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Aug 11, 2013 at 2:15 | history | bounty ended | Cole Tobin | ||
| Aug 9, 2013 at 8:07 | comment | added | Arjan | As for the lost body of the error response: love it when new software mimics IE4/5/6 ;-) | |
| Aug 2, 2013 at 10:42 | comment | added | TRiG | Note that these respones actually have a body that the browser displays. Fair enough, but is the response body short and stout? | |
| Jun 22, 2013 at 20:58 | vote | accept | caesay | ||
| Jun 22, 2013 at 15:35 | comment | added | Ry- Mod | You should answer this question, then. | |
| Jun 22, 2013 at 11:25 | history | answered | balphaStaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |