RFC2616 vs negative_ttl

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:31:31 +1200 (NZST)

http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2364

The default setting of negative_ttl is an HTTP/1.1 violation. Do we have
any good reasons not to make it default to zero (non-cached)?
Received on Thu May 29 2008 - 02:31:35 MDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Mark Nottingham: "Re: RFC2616 vs negative_ttl"
Previous message: Henrik Nordstrom: "Re: Another squid get-together?"
Next in thread: Mark Nottingham: "Re: RFC2616 vs negative_ttl"
Reply: Mark Nottingham: "Re: RFC2616 vs negative_ttl"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Aug 05 2008 - 01:06:35 MDT