Subject:
|
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 Nov 2000 16:58:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
390 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Todd Lehman writes:
> Let's try an experiment. Let's encode the URL that gets passed to jump.cgi
> two different ways: one with an unencoded colon and one with an encoded
> colon. The two URL versions appear here on a test page:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/test/jump/colontest.html
Netscape, linux 2.2.17 - no noticable difference between the two - very fast
both times.
:)
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
| (...) Well, not quite...I'm not ready to posit a cause-effect chain. I was merely trying to say that I couldn't fathom how the script itself could add anything more than a small fraction of a second. Slow DNS is one possible answer, but if it (...) (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
