zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. Pengui+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-08-15 19:30:47
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.
replies(2): >>mzs+bf >>lapcat+Dl
2. mzs+bf[view] [source] 2023-08-15 20:56:08
>>Pengui+(OP)
In 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
3. lapcat+Dl[view] [source] 2023-08-15 21:37:28
>>Pengui+(OP)
You'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.
[go to top]