Niall O Broin wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006, at 14:10, Paschal Nee wrote:
>> I think this man gets the cigar. Proxies might well have the redirected
> files cached, and looking at the logs for some example of IPs which got
> 302s but did not come back, I found addresses from AOL and wannadoo,
> both ISPs which use proxies.
>> On further recollection, I wonder should these 302s be included in the
> site's statistics in order to get more accurate results? A 302 NOT
> followed by a 200 or 304 on serverb isn't currently counted, but it is
> realistically a view of the file. Is there any kind of consensus about
> this?
It may be even simpler than this. I got thinking and set up a redirect
on my home server which hosts multiple virtual domains. I requested a
file which redirects to one of the other domains, got a 302 followed by
a 200 on the other domain. I requested it again, got a 302 but no 200.
So, the browser caches the redirected file. It can't cache the
original file because it doesn't exist, but when it gets redirected to
the other one it pulls it from its own cache.
Martin.
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
