On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:06 AM, André Warnier <aw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have not verified, but intuitively I would tend to think that no HTTP > caching mechanism (browser, server, mod_cache, proxies, etc..) would ever > really "cache" error responses, and keep responding the same from some cache > memory. > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/caching.html # The response must have a HTTP status code of 200, 203, 300, 301 or 410. This is largely a function 13.4 in the RFC: A response received with a status code of 200, 203, 206, 300, 301 or 410 MAY be stored by a cache and used in reply to a subsequent request, subject to the expiration mechanism, unless a cache-control directive prohibits caching. However, a cache that does not support the Range and Content-Range headers MUST NOT cache 206 (Partial Content) responses. A response received with any other status code (e.g. status codes 302 and 307) MUST NOT be returned in a reply to a subsequent request unless there are cache-control directives or another header(s) that explicitly allow it. For example, these include the following: an Expires header (section 14.21); a "max-age", "s-maxage", "must- revalidate", "proxy-revalidate", "public" or "private" cache-control directive (section 14.9). -- Eric Covener covener@xxxxxxxxx --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|