Subject:
|
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sun, 26 Nov 2000 06:05:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
386 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Todd Lehman writes:
> 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.
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 far as I know we don't cache. But our front
page has ucky flash on it which may distort things.
How about the GOB? that's a low traffic site, and we can ask the person who
runs it about the plumbing to the internet, it's his box...
www.bricksmiths.com?
bricksmiths.com [63.217.235.34]
Maybe it's me (and others) who have dodgy connections somewhere? My ISP
isn't the greatest, that's for sure.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
