[squid-users] Caching Google Chrome googlechromestandaloneenterprise64.msi

[Amos Jeffries]

On 23/10/2016 1:56 a.m., Antony Stone wrote:
> Disclaimer: I am not a Squid developer.
> 
> On Saturday 22 October 2016 at 14:43:55, garry wrote:
> 
>> IMO:
>>
>> The only reason I believe [explains] why core developers of Squid tend to
>> move HTTP violating settings from average users is to prevent possible
>> abuse/misuse.
> 
> I believe the reason is that one of Squid's goals is to be RFC compliant, 

It is.

> therefore it does not contain features which violate HTTP.
> 

None of the Squid dev agree with that conclusion. It would be nice, but
is not realistic. Squid has two relevant builds;

--disable-http-violations which adheres to the RFCs. Tollerant
processing is written into the RFCs, so we do not have to violate them
to interoperate with badly behaving other softwares.

--enable-http-violations which either just does or allows the sysadmin
to configure options that:
 * directly override SHOULD (NOT) requirements in the RFCs, and
 * directly overrides some MUST (NOT) requirements where we think they
can be safely avoided, and
 * extend the RFC described behaviours in custom ways that may not work
well but seem to have benefits.



Amos