Re: Burning Bandwidth

On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Miguel A.L. Paraz wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> Wolfgang Klimt wrote (in the squid-users mailing list):
>
> > ratzka@rsrz01.hrz.uni-marburg.de writes:
> > >Even "big" sites with high load fail to provide at least
> > >"Last-Modified" headers, which are crucial for caching. This is
> > >e.g. true for many of Netscape's own pages. So it seems they're not
> > >afraid of burning bandwidth...
>
> > I think they do this to get as many hits to their pages as possible.
> > They need those hits for their commercial purposes, many hits --> high
> > prices for commercial announcements.
>
> This is such a shameful waste. Right now I'm poring over my Squid
> store.log to see what sites refuse to be cached - they include
> home.netscape.com, loaded up by many newly-installed Navigator
> installations; as well as lots of other popular pages. Right now
> I'm cooking up some perl to give me stats on how much bytes are
> wasted by this counterproductive scheme.

It's even more ironic that Netscape does it, considering that they market
their own caching proxy server.

- Paul "Shag" Walmsley <ccshag@cclabs.missouri.edu>
  "Knowing is not enough." -- Hal Hartley, "Surviving Desire"
Received on Thu Jul 25 1996 - 11:45:44 MDT