On 19 January 2012 02:48, Daniel Friesen li...@nadir-seen-fire.com wrote:
You do realize that going by what you are saying. If 503's weren't cached
for that reason, then EVERY single request would be forwarded to the
apaches.
I'm talking about external caches, as I assumed everyone else was.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 19 January 2012 02:48, Daniel Friesen li...@nadir-seen-fire.com
wrote:
You do realize that going by what you are saying. If 503's weren't cached
for that reason, then EVERY single request would be forwarded to
On 19/01/12 11:56, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 19 January 2012 02:48, Daniel Friesenli...@nadir-seen-fire.com wrote:
You do realize that going by what you are saying. If 503's weren't cached
for that reason, then EVERY single request would be forwarded to the
apaches.
I'm talking about external
(I sent this already in reply to another thread but with too narrow topic, and
i think it's important enough to deserve its own. So pls excuse if you already
read this.)
To make the redirect a javascript is not a good idea. At least 2,213,922 users
will never see it
Michael wrote: Date: 2012-01-18 16:18:15 GMT (1 hour and 11 minutes ago)
To make the redirect a javascript is not a good idea.
+100
At least 2,213,922 users will never see it
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/?src=search
and maybe way, way more since there are many
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Thomas Gries m...@tgries.de wrote:
You should do a straightforward real shutdown instead, and deliver a fake
404 with explanation link.
And for several more days.
+1
Doing it via 404s would mess up search engines.
-Chad
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Thomas Gries m...@tgries.de wrote:
You should do a straightforward real shutdown instead, and deliver a fake
404 with explanation link.
And for several more days.
+1
Doing it via 404s
Cache pollution.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:57 PM, OQ overlo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Thomas Gries m...@tgries.de wrote:
You should do a straightforward real shutdown instead, and deliver a
On 18 January 2012 22:14, John Du Hart compwhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Cache pollution.
It would have to be a severely broken cache to be polluted by a 503.
503 is for temporary unavailability, you would be stupid to cache it.
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:29:31 -0800, Thomas Dalton
thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 January 2012 22:14, John Du Hart compwhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Cache pollution.
It would have to be a severely broken cache to be polluted by a 503.
503 is for temporary unavailability, you would be stupid
10 matches
Mail list logo
