[squid-users] Not all html objects are being cached

Yuri Voinov yvoinov at gmail.com
Thu Jan 26 20:46:21 UTC 2017



27.01.2017 2:44, Matus UHLAR - fantomas пишет:
>> 26.01.2017 2:22, boruc пишет:
>>> After a little bit of analyzing requests and responses with WireShark I
>>> noticed that many sites that weren't cached had different
>>> combination of
>>> below parameters:
>>>
>>> Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate, post-check,
>>> pre-check,
>>> private, public, max-age, public
>>> Pragma: no-cache
>
> On 26.01.17 02:44, Yuri Voinov wrote:
>> If the webmaster has done this - he had good reason to. Trying to break
>> the RFC in this way, you break the Internet.
>
> Actually, no. If the webmaster has done the above - he has no damn
> idea what
> those mean (private and public?) , and how to provide properly cacheable
> content.
It was sarcasm.
>
> Which is very common and also a reason why many proxy admins tend to
> ignore
> those controls...
>

-- 
Bugs to the Future
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x613DEC46.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 2437 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.squid-cache.org/pipermail/squid-users/attachments/20170127/ff86549a/attachment-0001.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.squid-cache.org/pipermail/squid-users/attachments/20170127/ff86549a/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the squid-users mailing list