Nginx as reverse Proxy, remove X-Frame-Options header

nano nanotek at
Thu Jan 9 17:14:44 UTC 2014

On 10/01/2014 2:21 AM, Jim Ohlstein wrote:
> Hello,
> On 1/9/14, 7:24 AM, nano wrote:
> [snip]
>> I share your opinion regarding nginx documentation. It is woeful.
>> Particularly when compared to other exemplary open source projects, such
>> as Postfix and FreeBSD. My inability to easily transfer my webservers to
>> nginx from Apache, due to (my own shortcomings compounded by) terribly
>> inadequate documentation, nearly made the transition impossible. Insult
>> was only added to injury when, after transferring some sites to the
>> recommended nginx, I found very little performance enhancement.
>> Admittedly, I am most probably not properly utilizing the application
>> and will only see improvements when my own abilities allow it.
>> Nevertheless, the documentation needs work. It is prudent to accommodate
>> less technically aware users.
> You may not see much "performance enhancement" if your server was not
> heavily loaded or if it is using PHP to serve static content, such as
> WordPress used to do up until version 3.4 and continues to do on some
> sites that were upgraded from older versions to the current version.
> Also, if you are running a PHP daemon and a MySQL server on the same
> server as you run nginx, they may contribute more to server load than
> does nginx. Optimizing them, especially MySQL, may give you significant
> "performance enhancement".

Thanks, Jim, for the suggestions. I may look into optimizing MySQL at a 
later date.

> I mention WordPress because you link to a
> WordPress site in your signature. Since your domain was first registered
> in November and since you only have a few posts most of which are
> rudimentary, I am going to doubt that you don't have a lot of traffic.
> Alexa does not even have data on your site yet, it's so new. Plus using
> a self signed certificate and creating SSL links on your home page -
> - give the big red page on Chrome. I have no desire to
> add an exception for a two month old domain. Spring for $4.99/year at
> and get a PositiveSSL
> certificate.

That domain only hosts a personal blog documenting FreeBSD procedures, 
and SOHO resource for colleagues, family and friends; in fact, the 
server is still running Apache and is not relevant to my observations 
pertaining to increased performance, or lack of, in transferring to 
nginx on other sites. Further, I have no desire to satisfy your trust 
concerns. My concern is to secure my own sensitive traffic. Moreover, 
the paradigm of entrusting third parties is foolish and highly 
susceptible to exploitation, but this, too, is irrelevant. Thank you for 
your concern and advice; however, I will not be purchasing a 
"PositiveSSL certificate".

> The shortcomings are yours indeed. The documentation is for people who
> understand the concepts and is not meant to be a replacement for a "for
> Dummies" book. I believe that (almost) every directive is covered. If
> you do not understand what the directives mean, there are many ways to
> figure it out. In such a case, Google is your friend.

I have no doubt, and iterated, my inadequacies affect my 
(mis)understanding of the documentation. Similarly, I remarked on the 
utility of alternative resources; found through Google. If you have some 
"for Dummies" resources, please feel free to provide them. That would be 

> Comparing nginx documentation to FreeBSD documentation is a bit
> unrealistic. FreeBSD documentation is written by volunteers of which
> there are dozens if not hundreds. The entire project is a community
> effort. Despite that, some is out of date. For instance, look at
> Do you see
> listed there, or its fingerprint? There may be other
> servers missing as well. I have found many other examples but that's the
> first that comes to mind.

It is analogous, as is the comparison to Postfix documentation. I did 
not claim FreeBSD literature is absent error, but that it is simply more 
comprehensive and accommodates "Dummies". If nginx chooses to cater for 
"for people who understand the concepts and is not meant to be a 
replacement for a 'for Dummies' book", that is the prerogative of the 
maintainers and developers of nginx documentation.

> Anyone who wants to *volunteer* to improve the documentation should do
> so. I'm sure the devs would at least look at any provided patches.
> Of course, you can always create a community effort of your own and
> organize your own wiki or alternate set of documentation. Or perhaps you
> can apply for a job at to work on upgrading the documentation
> to your standards.

I am certain there are people who value and appreciate the project 
enough that will choose to contribute. When the values and objectives of 
a project comport with my own, I often choose to contribute how I can; 
such as, deploying Tor exit nodes, documenting up-to-date, basic 
procedures, or making monetary donations to the FreeBSD Foundation. This 
is a nice quality of open source communities. The good ones thrive, the 
less valued do not.

> The original purpose of the wiki was to serve as English documentation
> when there was little to none.

I am sure that multimillion dollar donations will contribute to further 

> Sure, it had a bit more hand holding, but
> it really has become superfluous at least in terms of providing up to
> date documentation, at least IMMHO.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. Your advice will be 
considered. Thank you, Jim.


More information about the nginx mailing list