"566 Response...."

Discussion in 'Photo.net Site Help' started by rich_evans, Jul 11, 2004.

  1. While taking a look at the ratings for my pics, I attempted to take a
    look at the folders of some of the raters. In each instance, I got a
    message back: ?566 Response HTTP Version Unsupported
    This Web page could not be opened with the specified browser HTTP
    version. Please contact the owner of this Web page for more
    information.? Is there a problem with the system or do I need to
    adjust something? I?m on Windows XP, and AOL 7.0 - Thanks, Rich
     
  2. Several people have reported this, except all the reports so far were in connection with the new Community Member and Gallery Member pages.

    I tried to research this on Google, and it seems to be a problem related to the AOL, Compuserve, Walmart, etc proprietary browsers. Other websites have seen it also. Nobody seems to have much information on it, but some people were asserting that it was related to misbehaviour of the caching servers being used by AOL, etc.

    Since I don't know what it is about the new pages that is triggering this problem, I can't fix it. On the other websites where people were having this problem, the webmasters were telling the users to sign onto the Internet with their proprietary AOL (etc) browser, then to switch to a more standard browser, such as IE. IE and standard browsers don't interact with the (apparently broken) AOL caching servers, and don't have this problem.

    If anyone who has this problem would care to do battle with AOL, Compuserve, etc Technical Support, perhaps they will pass along a workaround. Telling people to contact the "owner of the Web page" is pretty cynical, since the "owners of web pages" don't have any information whatsoever as to what the problem might be. These are pages that work fine in other browsers, so it seems like an AOL technical support issue to me. I've checked on the AOL, Compuserve web sites for information on this, but there isn't any there either.
     
  3. Thanks Brian - I'll try to get some help or info from AOL. If I get any help (HA!) I'll pass it along. --Rich
     
  4. Brian - forget about AOL being any help - I was told that if their 'Auto Fix' routine couldn't help (which it didn't), that I had to upgrade to a newer version. Unfortunately, my system is currently dial-up which I plan on keeping that way for a while, and the newest version of AOL is not recommended for dial-ups. So I'll just continue to use MS Explorer which works just fine. --Rich
     
  5. Hi Rich, thanks anyway for the report, and for trying your luck with AOL Technical Support. I hope they didn't make you navigate through too many layers of voice menus and wait on the phone for too long. I'll keep checking in Google for any information on this problem, and if someone comes up with a clue, I'll see if I can work around the problem. It seems to me that if AOL is going to put out a proprietary browser, they should be able at least to explain the conditions under which it generates its error messages and give people some idea of what they mean. Especially, as in this case, when the error code (566) isn't part of the standard.
     
  6. I asked AOL-Germany for help. Some minutes ago, it worked without "566 Response..".
     
  7. It might be working now. Someone reported something else that I fixed, which might have been causing the 566 error.
     
  8. Did you find the solution to the problem?

    I am currently experiancing the same issue on my website. Very frustrating as AOL don't seem to be able to give a solution.

    Many thanks

    Peter
     
  9. Peter, in our particular case, we had pages triggering the 566 response from AOL seemingly because we were not generating HTTP headers on those pages. The HTML was fine, but there were no headers. I suspect the only header that is actually required is the "200 OK" header (or some error code header). But I didn't experiment with this.

    In theory, the AOL system has the right to expect the header to be there, and it is interesting that only AOL and Compuserve seemed to insist that the "200 OK" header be there. It would have been nice if the error message they sent back was a little more informative and used a code that is valid under the spec (566 is not one.)
     
  10. oops... i replied to this on the other error page. Sorry brain.

    where do i implement the 200 OK ? on the server?

    I really would appreciate the help. If it makes it any easier please feel free to e-mail me directly.

    Thanks,

    Peter S
     
  11. <p>Peter, depending on what web server you are using, it may not be necessary to do anything. Most web servers generate the first response header automatically. The server we use, aolserver, does too, usually. But it offers an API for generating the entire response yourself, including the headers, and some of the pages on photo.net use that. It is on some of these pages where there was a bug where the 200 OK was not getting generated.

    <p>If you want to check whether the headers are being generated on your server, I would suggest telnet-ing into your server on port 80 and typing the HTTP request yourself. It will probably be easy. Just type "GET url HTTP/1.0". The url should not have the http://www.yourdomain.com at the beginning. For example:

    <br>
    <br>GET /document.html HTTP/1.0

    <p>Follow this by two carriage returns. WHat you will get back will be what your browser normally sees, the headers and the HTML document. If your server supports only HTTP/1.1 and requires a Host header, you might have to do it as follows:

    <br>
    <br>GET /document.html HTTP/1.1
    <br>Host: www.yourdomain.com

    <p>followed by two carriage returns. If the page you are looking has complications such as needing cookies to work correctly or POST-ed form data, then it is still doable with telnet, but it starts to be less easy.

    <p>I cannot say that the 566 problem is caused only by the problem that we had on photo.net. AOL does't say what causes it, and there may be multiple causes.
     
  12. Thanks Brian, you are a great help. I'll give it ago.

    BTW I have seen some great photos on the site.
     

Share This Page