4 ms·

I've never realized that http status 999 was a thing. I've often used 401 to tell user something similar to "denied"...which i get is different in that "unautho

I've never realized that http status 999 was a thing. I've often used 401 to tell user something similar to "denied"...which i get is different in that "unauthorized" (for 401) is the browser telling the user, while i suppose 999 would be the server telling the client to tell the user a generic "denied"...so there's a difference there, but a little nuanced i suppose. I guess TIL.

irdc 3y ago
> I've never realized that http status 999 was a thing. It’s not. That code does not conform to any standard.
- kjs3 3y ago
  Which isn't remotely the same thing as whether it's a 'thing'.
  - irdc 3y ago
    Technically correct. But one could argue that it shouldn't be a thing.
    - kjs3 3y ago
      Then argue that. I can't even begin to catalog the things that shouldn't be, that are, even tho they aren't 'the standard'.
      - irdc 3y ago
        I don’t want to since I don’t think it should be a thing. If you want a catch-all error code, use 500 and accept the shame that comes with it.
vesinisa 3y ago
It's not a thing and this post should be taken down before some bright kid figures it's a good idea to copy.
chrismorgan 3y ago
You’re misusing 401: it’s only suitable when you’re using HTTP authentication. Refer to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#name-401-unauthorized https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#name-401-unauthorized for explanation. You want 403 instead.