 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) Ah. Let's try a different URL, then. You name it. And let's put in a raw IP address as well, so we can rule out DNS. --Todd (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Sounds good in theory, but I confess I don't know one offhand that would be a good test. Large ones are likely to use caching weirdness and small ones may have thin pipes that might throw us off. Or so I surmise. Hmm... how about my firm? as (...) (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) OK, I put in links to that nine different ways -- each of (3 URLs) each of those with %3A substituted for : in the jump.cgi parameter, and without jump.cgi. Note: On the numeric raw-IP versions of the URLs, the webserver reports "No web site (...) (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Use (URL) or (URL). These are both on a fat pipe and don't use caching. (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Christopher Lindsey
|
| | | | (...) I'm a little confused about the caching issue. Are we talking about DNS caching, or some sort of in-between proxy cache? Or is it the browser cache? Initially I thought that we were talking about DNS lookups taking the most time... If the (...) (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) It's these guys: (URL). They've secretly taken over most of the internet. (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
