Avoiding SSL URLs - 404 or error?

[santapaws]

Im wondering what google would expect to see for a site with no ssl setup. On apache this gives:
SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length.

(Error code: ssl_error_rx_record_too_long)

while i read in thread [webmasterworld.com...] that its suggested a 404 should be shown. Now which should be the correct way to handle a site with no ssl set but google asking for a url for an https page.

[dstiles]

I would have thought the "method not supported" code 405. The server should automatically respond with that, I would think.

Google should not, in any case, ask for an SSL URL if it has never existed - but then, that's google: try anything and hang the protocol and consequences.

[g1smd]

"Method" usually refers to GET/HEAD/POST/TRACE etc, rather than protocol.

There's a range of codes you could use to signal there's nothing doing.

[santapaws]

i notice webmasterworld just has the error:

SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length.

(Error code: ssl_error_rx_record_too_long)

[dstiles]

g1smd - that is certainly in the RFC examples but the opening phrase states: "A request was made of a resource using a request method not supported by that resource"

Since SSL is not supported by the resource I would be inclined to use 405.

I have to agree that the usual response does not seem to provide an error number, though; which is odd: it should do so the error can be handled.

Or use one I have only seen today for the first time:

418 I'm a teapot (RFC 2324)
This code was defined in 1998 as one of the traditional IETF April Fools' jokes, in RFC 2324, Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol, and is not expected to be implemented by actual HTTP servers.

[santapaws]

i guess that a POUR reply?

[lucy24]

418 I'm a teapot (RFC 2324)
This code was defined in 1998 as one of the traditional IETF April Fools' jokes, in RFC 2324, Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol, and is not expected to be implemented by actual HTTP servers.

Leading to the perfectly serious question: What happens if you intentionally return an error code that doesn't exist?

I can't experiment; I've used up my quota of 500 errors ;)

[dstiles]

Good question. I'd have to look at the RFCs but not at the moment. :(

[g1smd]

"Error 500. Great! Only 499 to go." -- jdMorgan