Re: Accept-encoding: gzip

* on the Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 02:06:57PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote: >> As a directory mirror, current requests for the mirror data cause about >> 2.7MB of data transfer. If the data could be delivered compressed with >> gzip that could significantly reduce the transfered data... > Agreed. Tha

Re: Accept-encoding: gzip

light zoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Mike Cardwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Or am I missing something? > >> > >> Mike > > Yes, you are missing something...and that is header > munging. If you use compression then the headers > can/may not be munged (spoofed and modified) as f

Re: Accept-encoding: gzip

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:57:17AM +0100, Mike Cardwell wrote: > As a directory mirror, current requests for the mirror data cause about > 2.7MB of data transfer. If the data could be delivered compressed with > gzip that could significantly reduce the transfered data... Agreed. That's why we do i

Re: Accept-encoding: gzip

--- light zoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Mike Cardwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Or am I missing something? > >> > >> Mike > > Yes, you are missing something...and that is header > munging. If you use compression then the headers > can/may not be munged (spoofed and modified)

Re: Accept-encoding: gzip

--- Mike Cardwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Or am I missing something? >> >> Mike Yes, you are missing something...and that is header munging. If you use compression then the headers can/may not be munged (spoofed and modified) as far as I understand. I do all my header munging (Firefox

Accept-encoding: gzip

transfers. This could be done in a backwards compatible fashion simply by using the http "Accept-encoding: gzip" option. This could even be an option that you enable/disable from the torrc. Am I right? Or am I missing something? Mike