Re: Digex transparent proxying
Or detect a proxy and refuse service (which, if I was doing this, is exactly what I would do).
"Go ahead, make my day." If you can detect the proxy box I used to sell via MII, and refuse service to it, I will post a retraction right here.
Not to mention those to derive advertising revenue from "views", and have no way to measure them in a cached environment.
"No way"? How about: rfc2227.txt -- Simple Hit-Metering and Usage-Limiting for HTTP. J. Mogul, P. Leach. October 1997. (Format: TXT=85127 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
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.
Playboy.COM did something like that to @Home last year for a similar reason. -- Paul Vixie La Honda, CA "Many NANOG members have been around <paul@vix.com> longer than most." --Jim Fleming pacbell!vixie!paul (An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network)
In message <g3af6xr2d5.fsf@bb.rc.vix.com>, Paul Vixie writes:
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.
Playboy.COM did something like that to @Home last year for a similar reason.
Who won? My bet is @Home. The cache operater has a relationship with the customer, and can more easily "explain" that the content site is broken. I still find it very hard to believe and content provider of significance would deliberately break proxies, when the proxies do not prevent them from doing anything they really need to do (maybe make it a little more work, but not much.) --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net
participants (2)
-
Jeremy Porter -
Paul Vixie