On 31 Jan 2002 at 9:48, Bruce BrackBill wrote: > Thanks for your responce Ian. When I use it without > --ignore-length option it appears that wget "SOMETIMES" ignores > the last_modified_date OR wget says to itself ( hey, I see the > file is older than the local copy, but hey, since the server > isn't sending me a content_length i'm just going to download it > again anyway :-). According the the manual ( as I read it ) > wget should ALWAYS reget the file if it has an empty content > length ( even though this is undesirable behavior ).
Sorry I ignored the timestamping part of your question. My answer only addressed the delays you were getting. It depends on the "SOMETIMES". Can you provide a sample debug output log (-d) and point out where you think wget is not behaving like you want it to? Also, you haven't mentioned which version of wget you are using yet. Wget should behave exactly the same for --ignore-length as it does when there is no Content-Length header, and as far as I can see from the source code, it does. If no Content-Length header was received, or it was ignored then only the timestamps are compared. Although the manual says that the Content-Length is used as an additional check, it fails to mention that that only applies when the Content-Length header exists and the --ignore-length option has not been used. > 2) In the php scripts I send out last_modified_date > 3) php does not send content_length ( and I don't do it > either in the script ) In that case, Wget's timestamping retrieval decision is based solely on the Last-Modified header, regardless of whether you use --ignore-length or not. A debug log would help confirm this.
