Re: minimum-cache time?+

From: Miguel A.L. Paraz <>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 14:08:54 +0000 ()

James R Grinter wrote:
> On Sun 27 Oct, 1996, "Miguel A.L. Paraz" <> wrote:
> >Which will ignore cache-control, Expires: immediately, and the like.
> >Or, is it a HTTP protocol violation?
> that's a real bad thing to do. We don't cache any of, because
> their 'make your own homepage' includes personal details; and the
> headers allow it to be cached by an HTTP/1.0 cache for half an hour.

Thanks for the advice... and then I tried giving "HEAD / HTTP/1.0" to their
web server to check it out, and it seems to equare HEAD with GET!

> They send the same 'cache-control: private' headers as,
> but unfortunately they're 1.1 headers being sent in a 1.0 response
> to a 1.0 request,

Isn't this OK--the browser should just skip over them.

> and they include an Expires: header giving a life time
> of 30 minutes (intended to be the time that the browser keeps the document,
> but it doesn't quite get treated like that).

So, you mean MSN.COM gives headers asking for it to be cached, but,
you shouldn't cache them since supposedly-static pages have changing
content? Hmm...

miguel a.l. paraz  <>  PGP: 0x43F0D011
iphil communications:  isp/intranet design and implementation, makati city, ph
Received on Sun Oct 27 1996 - 06:08:09 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:33:22 MST