On 3/09/2015 2:58 a.m., Yuri Voinov wrote: > > Here is an example. > > Look at this three screenshots. > > First. Two images requested by one client at the same time. > > http://i.imgur.com/JbMhTQ4.png > > This is the same image: > http://i.imgur.com/4khcCOT.png > http://i.imgur.com/Ya58kfG.png > > Agree? > > And - image is too small to contains any functional payload. Agree? So, Size does not enter into it. You are applying the pattern on all websites. The image sizes *will* be different on each of those websites. A tracking icon here, a visible icon there, a feature-length movie .gif somewhere else. > argument is simple random value to suppress caching. Right? On *this* website. Maybe. Could still be a 2x2 pixel background pattern generated on the fly by a server script based on the parameter. Or just that you are getting 2x2 pixels and others might be getting more. > > So, will cache or remains uncached? Better to be un-cached actually. If its clearly and purely a tracker you can save yourself and users trouble by 451'ing it. Create yourself a ERR_BLANK empty file in the Squid templates directory and deny_info 451:ERR_BLANK. 300 more bytes savings. (451 being "Blocked For Legal Reasons" since its policy not technical error, you can choose another if you wish). > > Will cache with store-ID: > > http://i.imgur.com/ZZmOMKz.png > > What I'm doing wrong? You are assuming that what you found out about rs.mail.ru applies to every other website ever created now or in future. It *probably* applies for images from other domains sharing the same webmail or CMS system used by that domain. But there is nearly zero chance of it always applying everywhere. Amos _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
