3 ms·
What is that attempting to prove or replicate? Here's a simpler test I think replicates what I am indicating in GP comment, with regards to cookie handling: N
by PenguinCoder 3y ago
What is that attempting to prove or replicate?
Here's a simpler test I think replicates what I am indicating in GP comment, with regards to cookie handling:
Not passing a cookie to the next stage; pure GET request:
$ time curl -s -A "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0" -e ";auto" -L https://t.co/4fs609qwWt > nocookie.html
real 0m4.916s
user 0m0.016s
sys 0m0.018s
Using `-b` to pass the cookies _(same command as above, just adding `-b`)_
$ time curl -s -b -A "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0" -e ";auto" -L https://t.co/4fs609qwWt > withcookie.html
real 0m1.995s
user 0m0.083s
sys 0m0.026s
Look at the differences in the resulting files for 'with' and 'no' cookie. One redirect works in a timely manner. The other takes the ~4-5 seconds to redirect.
- mzs 3y agoIn your second example you are passing the cookie file named ./-A then trying to GET the URL "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0" followed by https://t.co/4fs609qwWt https://t.co/4fs609qwWt
- lapcat 3y agoYou're completely missing the point, which is that the 5 second delay doesn't exist at all for most t.co links, even without cookies. The delay only exists for a few Musk-hated domains.