thx henrik, is it possible to change squid's behaviour to use a refresh-pattern for such sites, too? (without changing the source code) I mean sites without any validation headers.
I know this may cause a lot problems, but it may also be useful sometimes. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henrik Nordstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "alp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [squid-users] squid and php-sites > By default it does not. The RFC does not require either way as there is > explicit headers for instructing caches, but common sense recommends not > to as such pages are often dynamically generated by programs not aware > of caching. > > The refresh patterns are used, but only if there is no headers denying > the object from being cached. > > If unsure use the cacheability engine to check the status of the page in > question. > > Regards > Henrik > > > alp wrote: > > > > hi, > > i am not sure if squid is required to not cache sites without suitable > > headers (lastmod, expires,...). > > does anybody know? > > it seems as if for such objects the refresh-patterns are NOT used in > > squid.conf. > > is this right? > > > > thx in advance, > > alp > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "SSCR Internet Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "alp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:11 AM > > Subject: RE: [squid-users] question concerning php-sites and caching -still > > some questions > > > > > some sites dont want their pages to cached, so i guess squid will > > eventually > > > reload pages. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: alp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:01 PM > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [squid-users] question concerning php-sites and caching > > > -still some questions > > > > > > > > > thanks marc, > > > > > > i knowed this page already, it's a really nice one. > > > but my problem is: does squid never caches an object without validation > > > headers (expires, max-age, lastmod,...)? > > > if i have a refresh-pattern like > > > refresh_pattern . 0 20% 5 > > > such an object should retain at most 5 minutes in cache, shouldn't it? > > > or is refresh_pattern only used if an object has validation headers? > > > > > > thx in advance, > > > alp > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Marc Elsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "alp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:05 PM > > > Subject: Re: [squid-users] question concerning php-sites and caching > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alp wrote: > > > > > > > > > > hi, > > > > > i have on my webserver a simple php site which i query via squid 2.5. > > > > > this works (of course) and i see that no last_modified or > > expiry-header > > > is > > > > > replied, which is correct for dynamic sites, too, as far as i know > > > > > i have no cache_deny for php-sites and only the usual refresh_patterns > > > of > > > > > default squid.conf. > > > > > > > > > > squid does not cache this php side (also ok), but my question is: why? > > > > > is it hardcoded into squid not to cache php-sites, or is the missing > > of > > > > > expiry and last_mod headers the reason for this? > > > > > > > > Most probably, you may,for instance check objects (urls) > > > > with : > > > > > > > > http://www.ircache.net/cgi-bin/cacheability.py > > > > > > > > M. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thx in advance, > > > > > alp > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 'Time is a consequence of Matter thus > > > > General Relativity is a direct consequence of QM > > > > (M.E. Mar 2002) > > > > > > > --- > > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003 > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003 > > > >