Re: [Bug-wget] New to this, large files constraints?

[Jochen Roderburg]

Zitat von Jochen Roderburg <address@hidden>:

> This is really an "interesting" problem:
>
> > > http://socds.huduser.org/permits/output_monthly_csv.odb?outpref=csv&geoval=state&datatype=monthlyF&varlist=1%232%233&yearlist=2000%232001%232002%232003%232004%232005%232006%232007%232008%232009%232010&statelist=13%2337%2345&msalist=+&cbsalist=+&bppllist=+&cntylist=13033%2313073%2313189%2313245%2337007%2337025%2337071%2337119%2337179%2345001%2345003%2345005%2345007%2345009%2345011%2345013%2345015%2345017%2345019%2345021%2345023%2345025%2345027%2345029%2345031%2345033%2345035%2345037%2345039%2345041%2345043%2345045%2345047%2345049%2345051%2345053%2345055%2345057%2345059%2345061%2345063%2345067%2345069%2345065%2345071%2345073%2345075%2345077%2345079%2345081%2345083%2345085%2345087%2345089%2345091&COUNTYSUM=YES&COUNTYALL=+&COUNTYGRP=+&STATESUM=+&STATEALL=+&METROSUM=+&METROALL=+&METRO=+&CBSA=+&PLACEGRP=+&CSUMNAME=&JSUMNAME=+&geo=state&chron=monthlyF
>
> > > On Windows you may see older versions of wget give the error message
> > > "Result too large" but it means filename too long. In Linux "File name too
> > > long". And wget 1.13 --trust-server-names doesn't work with this site's
> > > response.. should it?
>
> Well, in theory it should work with "--content-disposition=on", as  
> the webapplication sends a  Content-Disposition header with a  
> filename:
>
> > > ---response begin---
> > > HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> > > Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
> > > Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
> > > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=BuildingPermits.csv;
> > > X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
> > > Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 05:58:06 GMT
> > > Connection: close
> > >
> > > ---response end---
>
> ... but wget seems to bail out with the overlong filename *before*  
> it reads the response headers.

After further examination I must retract the "before" assumption.

Debug outputs show the GET response headers with Content-Disposition  
and the error message comes after it, so it looks more as if for some  
unknown reason the Content-Disposition is simply ignored.

Best regards,
Jochen Roderburg