Digex transparent proxying

Sat Jun 27 12:18:12 UTC 1998

On Sun, 28 Jun 1998, andrew khoo wrote:

> more aggressive caching techniques would necessitate that the tags be
> ignored anyway, and the "dynamic" content would still be cached. expires
> etc are only useful if the caching box decides to honour them.

The tags are usually ignored by default - the html tags I mean - unless
itis parsed into http most caches will ignore it and you do have a
problem.  The majority of caches I've seen have a built exclusion for the
usual "always dynamic" items - cgi, "?" in path, asp... .

> some of the content providers in the US would turn over in their graves if
> they knew what people who pay heaps more $$$ for traffic are doing to
> their web sites :). we have done some funky stuff with content (read:
> caching of dynamic pages, even .asps, "tokenized" HTML, dropping realaudio
> UDP etc etc etc).

Yup - you folk in Australiaview caching as the norm - not the enemy. Go
figure...

--
I am nothing if not net-Q! - ras at poppa.clubrich.tiac.net