Re: minimum-cache time?+

On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Miguel A.L. Paraz wrote:

> > site) clearly Microsoft's stuff can be cached *already*? Or does Squid
> > 1.1 act differently to 1.0?
>
> Perhaps for other objects within MS, but, http://www.microsoft.com
> tells us not to cache it, three times in the MIME headers.

I just watched "access.log" whilst requesting that URL, shutting down the
browser (Lynx), restarting and requesting the URL again.

Both times, the entry in the log is "TCP_HIT/200/NONE". Does this not
mean that "http://www.microsoft.com/" has been successfully stored in
Squid's cache (and is subsequently being retrieved from same)?

As I asked above, maybe Squid 1.1 is behaving differently to Squid 1.0?
(I'm using the latter.)

> Yeah, but if we break protocols in response to others breaking them,
> the word "protocol" loses it's meaning...

Okay, what I mean is that returning incorrect headers (like Microsoft is
doing) is bad - but changing your behaviour/interpretation of headers (as
you know they may be wrong) isn't quite as bad (IMHO) if it helps you get
around the braindead attitudes of certain vendors/site admins.

I know it plays with the meaning of the word "protocol", but really a
"protocol" is like a Tango - it takes two; if they're not doing their
bit, then it's not a "protocol" anyway so us not doing our bit isn't
really going to make things any worse.

Cheers..

dave
Received on Sun Oct 27 1996 - 17:07:55 MST