Lists Home |
Date Index |
Hah! What do you know... :) I am still not convinced, though. But that
can wait for a 2003 PermaThread...
Happy New Year!
p.s. Though I admit that using http://www.example.invalid/ may be a good
p.p.s. I am surprised that a 404 response did not deter the search engine
from looking for the resource again. I wonder if one posted a huge list of
bogus URIs for a legitimate domain, would one be able to be able to flood
that domain using "dumb" (those that treat anything that looks like a URI as
an actual URI) search engines?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miles Sabin" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 6:40 AM
Subject: URIs, authorities and expectations of dereferencability
> I've been seeing entries like this,
> 220.127.116.11 - - [30/Dec/2002:21:06:58 +0000] \
> "GET /seairth/ HTTP/1.0" 404 283
> in my HTTP server logs for www.milessabin.com pretty regularly for a
> while now (the source IP is typically a search engine, in this case
> directhit/teoma), and I've been wondering why on earth that should be.
> I assumed it had _something_ to do with Seairth Jacobs, because
> googling for "seairth" pulls up references to him and not a lot else,
> but beyond that I had no clue.
> Well, I finally cracked and decided to get to the bottom of it. And what
> do you know? Searching for "seairth sabin" on teoma got me this,
> Ironic, no? Even tho' he _didn't_ by his lights have the authority to
> create that URI, the mere act of minting it and posting it to a mailing
> list with a web accessible archive created an expectation on the part
> of several agents that it would be usefully dereferencable.
> Which seems to support what I (I hoped uncontroversially) said earlier
> in the same thread,
> Happy New Year,
> Miles (resolving to to use http://www.example.invalid/ from now on ;-)