Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > And a slightly different question: > > How much content is indeed cahcable? Many web pages (usually the larger > ones) specifically ask the client not to cache. > > Also, there are still certain sites that it breaks (I remember one > occasion with yahoo mail and internet explorer, but I don't remember the > exact details). This is why I don't like things like a transparent proxy. > > (and users natually suspect the proxy server, as it gives them error > messageswhenever there is a problem, and they blame the messanger)
Not to mention the fact that with a caching proxy you read the news of yesterday (or 2 hours ago) instead of the current news. And "there is nothing older than yesterday's news". Another issue, is the fact that today most servers produce content not only according the requested URL (+HTTP input in case of a POST request), but also according to other zillion parameters, like cookies, time, client's IP, user-name (in case of an authentication), Accept- Language, user-agent, etc. If the proxy retrieves contents from its cache even when one or more of these parameters is different, then the content is incorrect. And if any small difference is anough to go to the original site, then the cache is very rarely used. -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO, Founder Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. __________________________________________________________ Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St. Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004 Mobile: +972-50-23-7338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
