On 27/10/2015 6:22 a.m., Yuri Voinov wrote: > > Ah, ok: > > We see in redbot.org this info in server response: > > Cache-Control: no-cache > It also says "this content was negotiated but does not have an appropriate Vary header". Which is marked as a protocol error. And has a status code of 400 (unspecified error by the client). And has passed through three non-Squid proxies without being cached there either. > > > So, what? 3.5.10 permit ignore this. 4.0.x - deny. > Rather bold statement. Where is the cache.log line(s) saying that was the decision Squid made? > Squid decides? > No, the content owner does. > Maybe I'll decide what and how to cache in the my setup? You are just the caretaker of the information. It belongs to its creators. What you can do with their property depends on what they allow to be done with it. HTTP is the legal rights granting methodology they chose to distribute with. The creators have granted you/anyone the license to cache (redistribute) that object. They did so via the badly named Cache-Control:no-cache header. Which comes with the license condition that the content be revalidated before redistribution. In other words, the content owner(s) retain the right to veto any recipient receiving their content or to provide alternative content at any time. [[ Given that it seems to flip between an error page and an image depicting the internal design of a nuclear device - depending on where in the world one views it from. It would seem that the behaviour is probably intentional. ]] Within your new right to cache and redistribute you then get to choose how long for - on that particular item. BTW: Revalidate does not lead to MISS. It leads to a REFRESH_MODIFIED or REFRESH_UNMODIFIED. Amos _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
