Is there any company that provides 301 or 302 as a service? -- something cheap. I know it's not hard to set-up a small box on AWS and install Node.js (or whatever). But I would pay few dollars a month for some service to run that for me.
301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
81–90 of 92 posts
Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#82Is there any company that provides 301 or 302 as a service? -- something cheap. I know it's not hard to set-up a small box on AWS and install Node.js (or whatever). But I would pay few dollars a month for some service to run that for me.
Wouldn't a URL shortener service be good enough? (E.g. https://goo.gl/ )
Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#83Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#84Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#85Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#86Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems yet another example of web professionals not understanding HTTP. Much like webpages that say "404 not found" with a "200 OK" header.
Stupid protocol decisions are still stupid protocol decisions no matter how much you condescendingly try and blame the user.
Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#882012 - somebody should write 2012 into the title of this post (that by the way hasn't any concrete data) I did some testing in 2009, think around 2012 and 2014. Additional to loffilegrepping after some big site URL rewrites. It's a non issue. No caching headers, the redirect gets cached only for the current browser session. Close it, reopen it, gone, done. Lets discuss this one based on data. (Which I cant provide ri…
https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/netwerk/proto...
The 301, 308 stuff comes from IsPermanentRedirect which is here: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/netwerk/proto...
Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#89Re: 301 redirects: a dangerous one way street (2012)
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems yet another example of web professionals not understanding HTTP. Much like webpages that say "404 not found" with a "200 OK" header.
Is the status line technically a header?
/quote RFC2616 (So, the status line is an entity of its own, which is followed by headers.)