Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://mastodon.social/users/reedmideke/statuses/112255146055369298">Reed Mideke (reedmideke@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 21-Nov-2024 06:15:21 JST</a><a href="https://mastodon.social/@reedmideke" title="reedmideke@mastodon.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/108668-48-20230320145057.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Reed Mideke" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Reed Mideke</a><div><a href="https://mastodon.social/@reedmideke/112255126516659218" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a></div></section><article><p>Moral of the story, you should never, ever use a 301 without explicitly controlling caching, but vast chunks of the web don't do this (including many registrars "redirect this domain to another site" functionality 😱 ). Anyway, good news for X/twitter is they have not made that particular mistake with x.com</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/4037917#notice-7890508">In conversation</a><time datetime="2024-11-21T06:15:21+09:00" title="Thursday, 21-Nov-2024 06:15:21 JST">Thursday, 21-Nov-2024 06:15:21 JST</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@reedmideke/112255146055369298" rel="external" title="Sent from mastodon.social via ActivityPub">mastodon.social</a></span></span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@reedmideke/112255146055369298">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/1300791">Untitled attachment</a></label><br></li><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/3532904">Screenshot of a portion of firefox dev tools showing the headers of a GET request form x.com. The status is 302 (temporary redirect) and the one response header visible is cache-control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate, pre-check=0, post-check=0</a></label><br><a href="https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/112/255/132/968/668/950/original/4eb30d13dfff7b47.png" rel="external">https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/112/255/132/968/668/950/original/4eb30d13dfff7b47.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Reed Mideke (reedmideke@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 21-Nov-2024 06:15:21 JST Reed Mideke
in reply to
Moral of the story, you should never, ever use a 301 without explicitly controlling caching, but vast chunks of the web don't do this (including many registrars "redirect this domain to another site" functionality 😱 ). Anyway, good news for X/twitter is they have not made that particular mistake with x.com
In conversationThursday, 21-Nov-2024 06:15:21 JST from mastodon.socialpermalink
Attachments
1. Untitled attachment
2. Screenshot of a portion of firefox dev tools showing the headers of a GET request form x.com. The status is 302 (temporary redirect) and the one response header visible is cache-control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate, pre-check=0, post-check=0
  https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/112/255/132/968/668/950/original/4eb30d13dfff7b47.png

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice