Re: "Hits" pragma (objection and alternative)

James Pitkow (
Thu, 17 Aug 1995 14:53:02 -0400 (EDT)


<> from "Reinier Post" at Aug 17, 95 12:24:31 pm
> will yield particular excerpts from the logfiles. The standardisation
> required would be in the URLs used to access this information. URLs like
> http://proxy.server/getlogs?format=ncsa1.4+type=access+from=01/01/95
> http://proxy.server/getlogs?format=ncsa1.4+type=proxy+from=01/01/95
> http://proxy.server/getlogs?format=ncsa1.4+type=cache+from=01/01/95
> might return the specified section of the logs (as far as they are available)
> in the specified format (if the format is supported), grepped for the
> host making the request. (This requires special attention, if the requests
> themselves are forwarded through proxies.)

As a server, how do you know, maintain, & schedule which proxies to query?
This is not an easy problem to solve reliably.

> Servers, and clients as well, have the right to view the exact imprints they
> make in proxy logs. Why invent a special format allowing proxies to censor
> this information? Just serve the logs!

Except that this information is considered in the HTTP 1.0 draft as private and
misuse of this information may violate certain privacy laws in certain countries.
You'd need to employ access control mechanisms to ensure that this information
was not accessible by everyone whenever. Furthermore, how do you specify the
time period that proxies need to keep the logs? High volume proxies can generate
100's of megabytes per day. I am not in favor of this alternative proposal.