 | | mozilla
|
|
Whoo, a new patch for the Linux rendering system is in today's nightlies, causing it to (finally) be as fast as Communicator in most situations. (And faster in others -- resizing deeply nested tables, for example.) (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) Right, but telling your viewers to do that every time isn't a very viable option. (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what you mean by cookies being set twice. The two functions above are used for non-logged in state and logged-in state respectively. Every page access while logged in causes the cookie to be set (notice they are not (...) (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
|
|
(...) BTW, the reason I *had* to figure out how to do this is because after uploading a file, the server spits out a javascript redirect (this.replace ...) to the folder url the uploaded to. If that page was cached, the user would see the cached (...) (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
|
|
(...) EXPIRES (...) Just a clarification, my example was for direct writing of HTTP headers, as you must do in a CGI. I suppose those tags would work as META HTTP-EQUIV tags in a web page, but I'm not sure if all proxy caches look at http-equivs, (...) (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
|
|
(...) That's a keystroke, right? A process runs to generate these pages quite frequently. We want the user to see the most freshly generated page without the user having to take any action of their own. So we want to put tags into the page to tell (...) (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
|
|
(...) <Ctrl> reload works for me. (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
|
|
(...) Wicked excellent. I'm going to try that. So the cookie rationale there is to avoid having cookies accidentally set twice, yes? In case one of the caching entities isn't smart enough to automatically not cache pages containing set-cookie (...) (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
|
|
(...) I read somewhere that not all proxy caches will observe this. Actually I think it said they only look at the actual headers, not HTTP-EQUIV. It doesn't hurt to cover all bases. See my other post for details. KL (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
|
|
(...) Here's what I do to guarantee no caching: void printCGIheader(){ printf("Content-type: text/html\n"); printf("Expires: 0\n"); printf("Cache-control: no-cache\n"); printf("Pragma: no-cache\n"); printf("\n"); } void printCookieHeader(char (...) (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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
