I should hope that Google is smart enough to look at the http Via
header[1] and allowing bigger caps for proxying HTTP requests.
On the other hand:
1) Google decides to have differential caps for proxying requests
2) People figure out that they could grab more pretending to be a
proxy by inserting this header field into their HTTP requests
3) Google caught on and went back to one cap to bind them all...
BTW, if #1 is true and #2 and #3 are not yet true, then they soon will be! ;-)
Glen Newton
http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/
[1]http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.45
> I suspect that proxying Google will trigger an automatic throttle.
> Early on, a number of us hit GB hard, trying to figure out what they
> had, and got stopped.
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Eric Hellman<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Recent attention to privacy concerns about Google Book Search have led me to
> > investigate whether any libraries are using tools such as proxy servers to
> > enhance patron privacy when using Google Book Search. Similarly, advertising
> > networks (web bugs, for example) could be proxied for the same reason. I
> > would be very interested to hear from any libraries that have done either of
> > these things and of their experiences doing so.
> >
> >
> > Eric Hellman
> > President, Gluejar, Inc.
> > 41 Watchung Plaza, #132
> > Montclair, NJ 07042
> > USA
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> > http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Check out my library at http://www.librarything.com/profile/timspalding
