Hi Amos, Thank you for your reply. I am wondering if squid should still be doing this if, as in my particular case, caching is disabled on the proxy instance. Based on my observations, it does. Thank you, John Craws On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>> >>> On 20/01/11 08:29, John Craws wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> After observing this, I have been going through RFC 2616, the squid >>>> documentation, mailing list archives and various google results. >>>> >>>> It's still not completely clear to me: why is squid adding a >>>> Cache-Control with max-age defined in cases where the original client >>>> request does not contain one. >>>> Why for a request? What is the intended behavior / desired result? >>>> >>>> Thank you! >>>> >>>> John Craws >>> >>> Which Squid version? there are different behaviours for different >>> versions. >>> > > On 21/01/11 05:07, John Craws wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Squid versions 3.1.9/3.1.10. >> >> Thank you, >> >> John Craws >> > > It looks from the code to be there to ensure the result is either within the > local proxies cacheable age range (according to refresh_pattern) or to get > all the way back to the origin for brand new data. > > Not exactly one of the optimal things to do, but it guarantees that fresh > content will come back. If you can come up with a better alternative please > mention it in squid-dev so we can improve things. > > Amos > -- > Please be using > Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE9 or 3.1.10 > Beta testers wanted for 3.2.0.4 >
