On 27/01/2017 9:44 a.m., Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> 26.01.2017 2:22, boruc пишет: >>> After a little bit of analyzing requests and responses with WireShark I >>> noticed that many sites that weren't cached had different combination of >>> below parameters: >>> >>> Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate, post-check, >>> pre-check, >>> private, public, max-age, public >>> Pragma: no-cache > > On 26.01.17 02:44, Yuri Voinov wrote: >> If the webmaster has done this - he had good reason to. Trying to break >> the RFC in this way, you break the Internet. > > Actually, no. If the webmaster has done the above - he has no damn idea > what > those mean (private and public?) , and how to provide properly cacheable > content. > I think boruc has just listed all the cache controls he has noticed in one line. Not actually what is being seen ... > Which is very common and also a reason why many proxy admins tend to ignore > those controls... > ... the URLs used for expanded details show the usual combos webmasters use to 'fix' broken behaviour of such proxies. For example adding "no-cache, private, max-age=0" to get around proxies ignoring various of the controls. Amos _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
