Re: [squid-users] URI suffix remove

lör 2006-03-11 klockan 01:29 +0000 skrev Jose Celestino:
> Had a problem similar to http://www.squid-cache.org/mail-archive/squid-users/200501/0278.html
> that is: to be able to ignore the suffix of the URI for caching and retrieving
> purposes.
>
> For example imagine you have the following URI request:
>
> /mybanners/468x60N/lrec-pink3.swf?clicktag=http%3A//bverv.pt/event/Tffggfdf86%2C93%2C101%2C110%2C150%2C182%2C204%2C2674%2C2675%2C2679%2C3493%2C3671%2C3824%2C3854%2C4228%2C4252%2C6199%2C6363%2C6548%2C6650%2C6701%2C6824%2C6883%2C6884%2C6897%2C6971%2C7308%2C7309%2C73186%2C93%2C101%2C110%2C150%2C182%2C204%2C2674%2C2675%2C2679%2C3493%2C3671%2C3824%2C3854%2C4228%2C4252%2C6199%2C6363%2C6548%2C6650%2C6701%2C6824%2C6883%2C6884%2C6897%2C6971%2C7308%2C7309%2C731
>
> In a not uncommon scenario files like these are served by a squid proxy.

Correct.

> And there's, of course, no server side use for that mumbo-jumbo.

Incorrect. It's used for statistical and kickback reasons.. but doing so
on relatively large shockwave files is plain stupid if you ask me..

> But you either end not caching it or caching useless, always diferent, objects.

These are normally not cached by Squid thanks to the ?

> The solution would be to discard everything after (and including) the 1st '?'.

very very many sites query parameters are used to select which
page/image/file etc to display.

The correct approach would be to send the webmasters of sites using such
links to read http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/

If you really want to do someting like this then it is best done via the
redirector interface. You should only do it when you know for 110%
certain that it is OK, which means a quite detailed ruleset with
per-site rules and what junk should be stripped away from those URLs.

Regards
Henrik