Re: [squid-users] Re: Do we have an algorithm to define the cachabillity of an object by the request and response?

From: Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer_at_ngtech.co.il>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:20:54 +0300

On 04/08/2014 11:25 PM, babajaga wrote:
> < stripping the range header <
> How often should I say: There is no range header any more ! There was one, a
> year ago, may be.
> Now the range is within URL !
>
> Real world example, brand new:
Redirect to a url with no range at all.
It's one of google defaults as far as I can understand.

Eliezer
Received on Tue Apr 08 2014 - 21:21:03 MDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: babajaga: "[squid-users] Re: Do we have an algorithm to define the cachabillity of an object by the request and response?"
Previous message: babajaga: "[squid-users] Re: Do we have an algorithm to define the cachabillity of an object by the request and response?"
In reply to: babajaga: "[squid-users] Re: Do we have an algorithm to define the cachabillity of an object by the request and response?"
Next in thread: babajaga: "[squid-users] Re: Do we have an algorithm to define the cachabillity of an object by the request and response?"
Reply: babajaga: "[squid-users] Re: Do we have an algorithm to define the cachabillity of an object by the request and response?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Apr 09 2014 - 12:00:05 MDT