North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Digex transparent proxying
- From: Chris Fournier
- Date: Sat Jun 27 12:15:04 1998
> > Not to mention those to derive advertising revenue from "views", and have no
> > way to measure them in a cached environment. If I was doing that, I would
> > also deny service to proxy servers and display a nice message telling the
> > user to remove the proxy or bitch about its forced use.
> Karl that is silly - in the a lot less time and effort that you would put
> in setting up your redirect - you could have just used a correct Expires
> header and has your content (or at least just the suff that you want to
> remain dynamic) avoid the cache. It serves you as the designer as much as
> it serves the enduser (speedier loads). If your page comes up quickly
> chances are the person will venture around a bit londer and click more
> links in the 20 minutes that they have before their date picks them up
> etc... It's common sense.
I Believe what Karl is trying to point out, is that alot of sites pay for
unique views. If you look at software like NetTracker or most other web
site tracking software define a unique view as a view from a unique host.
By forcing the use of a BACKBONE Proxy you are going beyond the normal
provider level and grouping a large number of providers and regions
together into a few hostnames. What they are doing is turning 10,000+
unique hosts into a few unique hosts in the name of saving money.