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

[Amos Jeffries]

On 27/01/2017 9:44 a.m., Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> 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.
> 


I think boruc has just listed all the cache controls he has noticed in
one line. Not actually what is being seen ...


> Which is very common and also a reason why many proxy admins tend to ignore
> those controls...
> 

... the URLs used for expanded details show the usual combos webmasters
use to 'fix' broken behaviour of such proxies. For example adding
"no-cache, private, max-age=0" to get around proxies ignoring various of
the controls.

Amos