I should hope that Google is smart enough to look at the http Via header[1] and allowing bigger caps for proxying HTTP requests.
On the other hand: 1) Google decides to have differential caps for proxying requests 2) People figure out that they could grab more pretending to be a proxy by inserting this header field into their HTTP requests 3) Google caught on and went back to one cap to bind them all... BTW, if #1 is true and #2 and #3 are not yet true, then they soon will be! ;-) Glen Newton http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/ [1]http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.45 > I suspect that proxying Google will trigger an automatic throttle. > Early on, a number of us hit GB hard, trying to figure out what they > had, and got stopped. > > Tim > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Eric Hellman<e...@hellman.net> wrote: > > Recent attention to privacy concerns about Google Book Search have led me to > > investigate whether any libraries are using tools such as proxy servers to > > enhance patron privacy when using Google Book Search. Similarly, advertising > > networks (web bugs, for example) could be proxied for the same reason. I > > would be very interested to hear from any libraries that have done either of > > these things and of their experiences doing so. > > > > > > Eric Hellman > > President, Gluejar, Inc. > > 41 Watchung Plaza, #132 > > Montclair, NJ 07042 > > USA > > > > e...@hellman.net > > http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > -- > Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding