Andrew M. Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know that quite a few people want WWWOFFLE to be an archiving > program, but I am against that. An archiving program does not need > the proxying functions but probably works best if it works like > www.archive.org.
I disagree here, what I need is a proxy cache with archiving functions. Thats how I use WWWOFFLE, and I can't imagine how a archiving program which is not a web proxy that I always have in my webbrowser proxy settings, would be useful. What is useful is an archiving program that automatically archives all pages a user looks at in his normal browsing. How do you expect something that "works like www.archive.org" to do that? Currently one of the greatest options of WWWOFFLE is keep-cache-if-not-found = yes I wonder why its no by default. However it has one big deficiency: if the page we had in the cache is replaced by some other page with status 200 (for example with some text removed, or some newer news, or an explanation page that the author had to remove the content because of some legal problems, etc), than we lose the previous version forever. It would be useful if there was an option to instruct WWWOFFLE to always keep a backup copy (for some URLs), regardless of whether the new version is status 200 or not. Ideally it would keep all old versions (or a configurable number for each URL-SPEC) if they differ from each other, and allow diffs between them. -- Miernik _________________________ xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________/_______________________/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Protect Europe from a legal disaster. Petition against software patents http://www.noepatents.org/index_html?LANG=en
