 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Did I just say that? Oops. That's wrong. There isn't any jump.cgi in the context of NNTP -- only HTTP. Duh. So it's never more than 1 DNS lookup in the case of NNTP and never more then 2 DNS lookups in the case of HTTP -- and in practice, it (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) If you're reading via HTTP, then it's only one resolution because your client will already have resolved www.lugnet.com. If you're reading via NNTP, then it may be two and it may be one depending on your DNS cache. (...) With a typical URL, (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Well I suppose the nub of this is, if we accept LP's assertion that it is slowing things down, is the cost of doing this worth the benefit. Is the data being collected because it can be collected, or because it needs to be collected? Scott A (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
Let me try to be clearer. (...) This is almost certainly what a lot of it indeed is. Using jump.cgi theoretically doubles the latency since two resolutions are required. But it's not ALL the delay, some surely, is at the server itself while it (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) It's not to track stats on who goes where, although an evil server that wanted to do that could probably do that. Its purpose here is to track how often the where's are being gone to relative to one another and from what pages. It's the (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
