On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:07:33 -0600 "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Transparent proxies where ISP's force their caches to keep things for > too long so they can save bandwidth at the expense of their users > getting the most recent data screws their users, not the website > provider. In this case I just happened to be both. Where my box is, who > controls it, are all irrelevant. As Jason pointed out, even if the box > were at my feet, by requesting "www.simpaticus.com" I would /STILL/ get > their cached copy unless I also had split-horizon DNS installed in my > house. Rodolfo, Have you tried including some cache control directives in your web pages? <META HTTP-EQUIV="cache-Control" CONTENT="no-cache"> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache"> Full spec of cache control directives can be found here: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.9 > Which again boils down to why I don't mind transparent proxies (it's a > bitch to make money as an ISP), but it bugs the hell out of me to have > their cache disregard a refresh request, especially when the page in > question HAS changed and the cache doesn't even bother to go look (or > worse, refuses to update anyway). Just not nice behavior there. I don't know but i wonder if specifying a public anonymous proxy in your browser would bypass your ISP's proxy? Maybe the same issues exist even if you're directing requests to an external proxy of your choice? Sean -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
