 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
