Bradley Baetz wrote: >On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Darin Fisher wrote: > > > >>yeah, i suppose we could come up with a black-list of bad proxy servers >>(including >>transparent ones) as bugs are uncovered. i thought about doing this as >>well, but my >>big concern is the increasing number of such bug reports (presumably >>because moz >>1.0 has been released). so, i wonder how many bug reports corresponding >>to buggy >>proxy servers we aren't getting. in fact, we may never be able to build >>a complete >>black-list :-( anyways, that's my fear... maybe there aren't that many >>bad proxy >>servers and hopefully any new ones will have been tested against >>mozilla/ns6/ns7. >> >>darin >> >> >> > >Yeah, I think that blocking junkbuster and old MS proxies should cover >most of it, though. > >Squid is really common, and it works, so... > >Note that downgrading isn't as simple as it seems, because we have to send >out a version ot start with. We can always just drop the connection if we >change our minds, though. > >Bradley > > >
right, and downgrading can mean very different things depending on the nature of the proxy server bug. it might mean, use HTTP/1.0 keep-alive semantics. or it might mean, keep-alive only to the same origin server via the proxy (i.e., only reuse a proxy connection for requests destined for the same origin server). or, maybe it'd mean disable keep-alives, but i suspect all proxy servers probably support keep-alives in some sense. darin
