Re: WTF: Debian security, ex. Linux kernel vulnerabilities
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Cc: Dave Holland <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: WTF: Debian security, ex. Linux kernel vulnerabilities
- From: Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:15:53 +0200
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <20050923141334.GA28156@eyas.biff.org.uk> (Dave Holland's message of "Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:13:34 +0100")
- References: <C0A0990D-ED42-41AA-BA19firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050921130927.GB15562@uio.no> <77A64A0A-7184-4D20-8D20-DE00333BC230@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <20050921162609.GA8312@uio.no> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <94606ED0-96C3-46DB-ABA9-F1BB9BD3D1D5@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <email@example.com> <7F0E0927-FF03-4D51-B419-479AB0FA0DEC@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050923141334.GA28156@eyas.biff.org.uk>
Scripsit Dave Holland <email@example.com>
[thread from -private; quotes trimmed to remove not explicitly
> I believe Tim is using "proxy" to mean "caching proxy", i.e. it can
> serve up content in its own right even if the source machine is
> I believe Henning might be thinking that Tim means "simple non-caching
> proxy"; in which case, yes, the suggestion would have little merit.
No I'm not. I know that a proxy can cache data that have been
requested once. But even so, how is that supposed to be more desirable
than a mirror?
The only thing you gain by using a (caching) proxy instead of a mirror
is the _risk_ that at the time the main server goes down, the proxy
will not have all of the server's files in its cache, because there
are some that have not been requested once yet.
>> I have still not written anything private in this mail either.
> Nor me!
OK, let's move to -project then.
Henning Makholm "The compile-time type checker for this
language has proved to be a valuable filter which
traps a significant proportion of programming errors."