Dancer wrote:
> That - to me - begs the question of what squid does with 'Cache-control:
> private'. Best case assumption: If user information is available, the
> page is cached but can only generate a hit for the same user. Worst case
> assumption: Page is not cached at all.
Read your message one more time, and it appears I didn't answer your
question in my previous response.
No, Squid is not intended to be used as a private cache. Private caches
are more suitably located in the browser, as is done by most browsers
today. Hence Squid does NOT try to cache private content. If user
authentication information is available then Squid assumes the content
is private.
Also:
Cache-Control: private
should NOT deny caching in a private browser cache. If it does then it
can be argued that the browser cache is broken, or at least not acting
in the users best interest.
/Henrik
Received on Tue Oct 26 1999 - 16:20:33 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:49:05 MST