-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:59:10 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:29:52 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> Since in.indiatimes.com is an akamai host, you can't trust that the
>> headers you get from that are the same ones that the origin site sent
>> out. Without knowing what the origin site's IP/hostname is, you can't
>> get the raw headers, so all your stuff above, is a waste of typing,
>> since Akamai can, and does, mess with the headers.
>
> So then claiming that's it's a Windows server is just as suspect.
>
there is evidence that it's a Windows server, as much evidence as
www.msn.com offers anyway :)
>> Could it all be running on Linux? it's possible, have you proven it? or
>> even offered compelling evidence? no.
>
> And a mere server header is compelling evidence?
Now that you've been shown your header analysis was faulty, you suddenly
want to dismiss headers as evidence?
It's compelling that it claims to be IIS. Since it's coming through
Akamai, it *could* be anything. Is it Linux? I doubt it, but if you have
some evidence, instead of your misdirection and poor understanding of
headers and how a caching proxy handles them, bring it on.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHOQA0d90bcYOAWPYRAs4YAKCU7Z79Nubj0F5zZLnIN1BqUEQ+TQCfQHLG
BZ4UzcTDAUcwCsgz2HNEhbA=
=u+Dn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
We aim to please. Ourselves, mostly, but we do aim to please.
Anthony DeBoer
|
|
