|
|
 | | Re: jump.cgi
|
| (...) I'm no fan of jump.cgi for my own reasons (just because it considers itself it's own link- so it always looks unfollowed, even if the page you'll end up at by following it is one you've been to before, until you follow the jump.cgi link). But (...) (26 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: jump.cgi
|
| (...) Wow, that it soooo freaking bizarre. And it's consistent? Must be something deeper and stranger going on here. (...) Would it be possible to make a screen shot of it and write down the exact text? If it's putting in underscores, that's very (...) (26 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: jump.cgi
|
| I'm on a 2Mb/sec frame-relay link. I don't see any problem from here (Italy). Same delay as before (without jump.cgi). No problem also with a 56Kbit/sec dial-up to a local ISP (Tiscalinet). It doesn't look like a routing problem, maybe a browser-OS (...) (26 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: jump.cgi
|
| (...) I see no problem either at home or at work. At home, I've got SDSL at 768, and at work there's an amazingly fast connection (think it's currently dual 45Mbit to the general internet). This is with either Mozilla (nightly) or Netscape 4.7x (...) (26 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: jump.cgi
|
| (...) back (...) Just tried it here at work. Our largest single pipe to the commodity internet is a DS-3 through Qwest and that's the link I'm tracing from me to you (actually it drops into Sprint to get to Pair). Same delay time - up to 4 seconds. (...) (26 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
|
