 | | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) Some browsers (I don't remember which ones, sorry) don't respect this. It's best to combine this with the expires header, I think. :( (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
In the header of the page add: <META HTTP-EQUIV="PRAGMA" CONTENT="NO-CACHE"> This tag also keeps pages from being cached by proxy servers... (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) IIRC, there is a pragma no-cache that you can add to the HTTP headers. --Todd (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
Is there a better (any other?) way to force a page not to be cached but instead fetched from the server every time, other than using the META EXPIRES tag at the top of the page. That's the only way I found and am interested to learn if there are (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: IE css help
|
|
(...) Turns out the answer is: it's a bug in IE 5.0. Seems to be fixed in 5.5. (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: where can I find VB40032.DLL?
|
|
Did you ever find the needed runtime file? It is posted at (URL) A" <s.arthur@hw.ac.uk> wrote in message news:Fxt5zz.GGp@lugnet.com... (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "EarthLink.Net" = spam ?...
|
|
(...) Also, you might take a look at spamcop - (from memory, www.spamcop.net?). it'll analyze the headers for you, and even send mail to the right addresses to complain... I've found it quite effective. :) Dan (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "EarthLink.Net" = spam ?...
|
|
(...) It's an old protocol, designed before people even thought about problems like this. (...) finger, probably, or the equivalent. One problem with this is that having sites give out information about the existence or nonexistence of given (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "EarthLink.Net" = spam ?...
|
|
You're right in that the "real" sender's identity (or at least, sending location) can be traced via the headers, etc., and I know how to change my options to see all the headers/trailers/etc. I can see now how they could fake a return address and (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "EarthLink.Net" = spam ?...
|
|
(...) Earthlink is a very popular isp -- second after AOL. (Or perhaps third after Juno; depends how you count.) So it's very likely that people pick Earthlink as a target for forged addresses. It's also common to see things purporting to come from (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
