-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 22.10.2016 19:32, garryd@xxxxxxxxx пишет: > On 2016-10-22 17:56, Antony Stone wrote: >> Disclaimer: I am not a Squid developer. >> >> On Saturday 22 October 2016 at 14:43:55, garryd@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >>> IMO: >>> >>> The only reason I believe [explains] why core developers of Squid tend to >>> move HTTP violating settings from average users is to prevent possible >>> abuse/misuse. >> >> I believe the reason is that one of Squid's goals is to be RFC compliant, >> therefore it does not contain features which violate HTTP. >> >>> Nevertheless, I believe that core developers should publish an >>> _official_ explanations regarding the tendency, as it often becomes a >>> "center of gravity" of many topics. >> >> Which "tendency"? >> >> What are you asking for an official explanation of? >> >> >> Antony. > > Since I started use Squid, it's configuration always RFC compliant by default, _but_ there were always knobs for users to make it HTTP violent. It was in hands of users to decide how to handle a web resource. Now it is not always possible, and the topic is an evidence. For example, in terms of this topic, users can't violate this RFC statement [1]: > > A Vary field value of "*" signals that anything about the request > might play a role in selecting the response representation, possibly > including elements outside the message syntax (e.g., the client's > network address). A recipient will not be able to determine whether > this response is appropriate for a later request without forwarding > the request to the origin server. A proxy MUST NOT generate a Vary > field with a "*" value. > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-7.1.4 Well, what of it? What developers RFC got good money from Google for ignoring caching level standards. Because that Google is profitable. "Hey - they say - these dumb bastards all unlimited internet! Let it pay!" And Google is not the only example in this case. I have seen, for example, http://www.example.com/big_fucking_favicon.ico?null=0 design. Where the size of the icons was hundreds of kilobytes! How about this? Do not tell me that this is required for the functioning of the site - a code may be in the picture? What's the bottom line? Let's continue to sit on horseback, dressed in white, and pray to the RFC! > _______________________________________________ > squid-users mailing list > squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYC22IAAoJENNXIZxhPexGELAH/02opOgF+Jh4fff/6T15ECMB kqobxY+RYdLgkzGV23Fx88dLD4AHDQIapw7tlbpgzGpjc8N4z78AY/TSBRT/l3AP l7wfQ+Egq9DRC2Z+XXN5oQT0naIgHmGbJl73btpG9t59u84N9jqMrA4i3fnVy0aO fY1dq5+aG6jo4aGB17QzL9JGJxFsBkVbAvI6ZVJ445RMmoeh4+MHOUoewv7h/xY6 GSRN9kwdAfhqkGtiRAH4y8mpexRAztpTB6EOpGXupJzRuTuAujB2LGKlbnHYvXL4 a+PzlcvG8n2ZHy4YtjxRg0mymbM59F7SZvMTTRaQ7knD/2/cnXTx5U22roT57Io= =kpXt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attachment:
0x613DEC46.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
_______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
