Henrik, thanks for the reply. I tried the workaround and now is able to access www.evangel.org.sg thru squid. Anyway an email was sent to the web admin to alert him of this problem. Just one curious thought; accessing this website thru NetCaches and BlueCoats poses no problem. Could we learn something from these commerical appliances? I would like to help if needed...just a thought. Anyway squid is great and thanks to everyone for the input. 8-) Regards, Tay --- Henrik Nordstrom <hno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > simply trying showed that the server is not able > to understand > > Cache-Control: max-age=259200 and refuses the > request. > > Confirmed. > > $ telnet www.evangel.org.sg 80 > Trying 203.127.19.66... > Connected to www.evangel.org.sg. > Escape character is '^]'. > GET / HTTP/1.0 > Host: www.evangel.org.sg > Cache-Control: max-age=259200 > > HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden > Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 22:12:54 GMT > Server: Apache/2.0.49 (Unix) DAV/2 mod_fastcgi/2.4.2 > mod_ssl/2.0.49 OpenSSL/0.9.6i > > > > Seems there is something (most likely a broken > reverse-proxy/accelerator) > at this server mis-reading the max-age Cache-Control > directive, denying > the request if max-age is too high. A extremely odd > (and broken) thing to > do as max-age works the other way around only > requiring special action if > too small.. (and never by a web server anyway). > > > You can work around this broken web server by using > a refresh_pattern > assigning a quite small max-age to objects fetched > from this site, at the > expense of less caching of this site. > > Add the following to the top of your squid.conf > (before any other > refresh_patter rule): > > refresh_pattern -i ^http://www.evangel.org.sg 0 > 30 0 > > this effectively disables caching of the site. It > may be possible to use a > higer max-age but as the exact nature of this server > bug is not known I > can not guarantee that doing so won't cause problems > with other requests > to the same site. > > The index page today accepted a max-age up to 16500 > somewhere, increasing > by the second. Why I suspect some kind of > reverse-proxy/accelerator > beingthe culpit is because while the max-age limit > is increasing by the > second making it somehow tied to the objects age at > the server it does not > match the modification age of the document as > reported by last-modified. > > Regards > Henrik > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 1GB free storage! http://sg.whatsnew.mail.yahoo.com
