Your IP solution is more expensive in my opinion. It is expensive to you, and does little to solve the problem. You are not identifying the client. You are identifying what your server thinks the client is. BIG difference. Especially with the oodles of NATing going on in our lovely world. -----Original Message----- From: uri_raz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uri_raz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:05 AM To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Apache improvement suggestion Sorry if those question are dummy, but - 1. How do I check for *no* referer field ? 2. Are you sure only 5% of the requests will have no referer field, considering the number of surfers using firewalls ? 3. Why is it you think checking for no referer field is more expensive, server side, than the solution I've offered ? Thanks, Uri. At 01:46 PM 5/11/2005, Joshua wrote: >To solve this problem, simply allow through any request with *no* >referer field, in addition to requests with the proper referer. Then >anyone trying to inline your images will still find that 95% of people >visiting their page will find it broken, so they won't get any benefit >from the inlining. The fact that 5% of the requests will succeed >shouldn't matter. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|