 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Dan Boger
| | | | (...) why do you need traces from lugnet to wherever? the jump.cgi doesn't get the data for you, it just redirects you to your desination... so the connection speed between lugnet and your target is immaterial. btw, if you want to try another host, (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Eric Joslin
| | | | | (...) I was under the (incorrect?) assumption that the lugnet server performed the lookup for the new domain as part of the jump.cgi process. If it is, in fact, your machine doing the lookup, then no, Lugnet traces wouldn't be needed, natch. eric (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Eric Joslin
| | | | | | (...) D'oh, what the heck am I talking about. No, you're right, Lugnet searches aren't necessary at all, either way. It's been a long time since I've done any DNS stuff, just ignore me on that point. eric (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1) —Todd Lehman
| | | | | (...) It doesn't, no. --Todd (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | |
