[squid-users] About no_cache allow acl [signed]

Hi,
Do we ever require no_cache statement with allow acl. I have seen proxy
forcing cache as:
acl QUERY urlpath_regex cgi-bin \? intranet
acl forcecache url_regex -i kh.google mt.google keyhole.com
no_cache allow forcecache
no_cache deny QUERY

I would like to notice on forcecache. Why do we need to force caching
here. Doesn't squid cache the objects when it requires? Why do we need
to force it here?
I guess, it is to force cache to non-cacheable objects. Is it true? More
details on this is appreciated.
Does forcing cache this way overrides other options like
maximum_object_size?

I will highly appreciate your response.

Best regds,
Rajendra Adhikari.

--
--------------------- [ SECURITY NOTICE ] ---------------------
To: squid-users@squid-cache.org.
For your security, rajendra@subisu.net.np
digitally signed this message on 30 June 2006 at 14:14:25 UTC.
Verify this digital signature at http://www.ciphire.com/verify.
---------------- [ CIPHIRE DIGITAL SIGNATURE ] ----------------
Q2lwaGlyZSBTaWcuAjhzcXVpZC11c2Vyc0BzcXVpZC1jYWNoZS5vcmcAcmFqZW5k
cmFAc3ViaXN1Lm5ldC5ucABlbWFpbCBib2R5ACcCAAB8AHwAAAABAAAAwTGlRCcC
AACBAgACAAIAAgAge41wR4L+bXcWdThKam3FEHwmE/qn1pYTspEfujVuk+0BAHcW
34bSvF8RoB15amIjv339V+ZaGrEv2mG92v+dvY8RaALcbvF4F/Ws+xGYp6IgYjhU
dsn5/yP3Ru0o8hv7QOdaLCm3U2lnRW5k
------------------ [ END DIGITAL SIGNATURE ] ------------------