Re: Re[2]: [squid-users] Vedr.: Re: Vedr.: Re: [squid-users] headers.. how to override them - so that it cachesthe url?

From: Henrik Nordstrom <>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 16:56:55 +0100

On Thursday 29 November 2001 15.34, Ben Ryan wrote:

> The potential is there for problems, but including the option to control
> all aspects of the http transaction surely is a Good Thing? After all, it
> is up to the admin to enable such hacks, and you could add a compile-time
> option to include them. This should minimize the
> "looks-good-let's-turn-that-on" efforts. If you want the feature, you have
> to go thru manpages to find it. I think that's ample safety - even though I
> don't think it's OK to 'protect users from themselves' - leave that to
> Microsoft and their hidden registry settings...

Questionary: How many times have you seen the phrase "do not use configure
options you do not know you need" here on squid-users?

When we implement HTTP violation knobs (yes, these are explicit violations to
the standard) we have to consider the interests of quite many people, at
least the following groups:
 * Site operators
 * Cache administrators
 * Reverse proxy administrators
 * End users

Interests of these groups are largely conflicting.

We also have to consider the balance between site operators and cache
administrators, which already are a tight balance. The more cache
administrators override HTTP settings the more annoyed site operators gets,
and likely to become even less cache friendly.

The exception to all this is reverse proxying. The interests of the reverse
proxy operator does not conflict with anyone but himself.

> As cache admins, we're not HTTP police, we're just tuning a cache to
> provide maximum benefit for all.

Define all.

If you want to tune to provide the maximum benefit for all, then the with no
exception best approach is to convince site operators is for their own best
interests, not an evil. A good startingpoint is

> But in the end, it's not people like myself who will be adding the
> features. If I could, I would. So all we can do is try and explain how more
> control would make squid more functional and useful.

And here you are hitting a very important aspect of Free software. Who do you
suppose will add these options if not the one who needs them? Squid is Free
software, meaning everyone is free to add whatever functionality they need.
This freedom does not automatically imply others will spend time to add these
features only because you need them.

Anyone having a need to extend/modify the functionality of any Free software
have the option to do so for their own use, either directly or indirectly.
Anyone wanting to share such extensions/modifications with their friends or
the rest of the world are also free to do so given certain minor restrictions
(source must be available etc..).

> btw Henrik, thanks on behalf of everyone (i spose :)) for the immense
> effort you put into helping people out with their squid issues!

Thanks. I try my best.

Received on Thu Nov 29 2001 - 08:57:25 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:04:43 MST