On 25/10/2016 6:35 p.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
>
> So, HEAD request _can_ be used as a reliable source for object
> revalidation. How the 'can' should it be interpreted? RFC2119 [2] does
> not specifies that.
>
>
> AIUI, that exact case leaves two choices:
>
> * Implement something like
On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 21:05 +0500, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> On 2016-10-24 19:40, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> >
> > So, the big G sends 304 only to HEAD requests, although it is a
> > violation [1], AIUI:
> >
> > curl --head -H 'If-Modified-Since: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:29:09 GMT'
> > -H
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
24.10.2016 22:05, Garri Djavadyan пишет:
> On 2016-10-24 19:40, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
>> So, the big G sends 304 only to HEAD requests, although it is a
>> violation [1], AIUI:
>>
>> curl --head -H 'If-Modified-Since: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:29:09
On 2016-10-24 19:40, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
So, the big G sends 304 only to HEAD requests, although it is a
violation [1], AIUI:
curl --head -H 'If-Modified-Since: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:29:09 GMT' -H
'If-None-Match: "101395"' http://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chro
I'm sorry to interrupt - I remember someone saying that you need to
always abide by RFC? Well, as you say it to Google?
24.10.2016 20:40, Garri Djavadyan пишет:
On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 01:22 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 25/10/2016 12:32 a.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
On Mon, 2016-10-24 at
On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 01:22 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 25/10/2016 12:32 a.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 23:51 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> > >
> > > On 24/10/2016 9:59 p.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, the topic surfaced new details
On 25/10/2016 12:32 a.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 23:51 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> On 24/10/2016 9:59 p.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
>>> Nevertheless, the topic surfaced new details regarding the Vary and
>>> I
>>> tried conditional requests on same URL (Google Chrome)
On 24/10/2016 11:49 p.m., Yuri wrote:
>
>
> 24.10.2016 16:42, Alex Crow пишет:
>> On 24/10/16 11:26, Yuri wrote:
>>
>>> No, Amos, I'm not trolling your or another developers.
>>>
>>> I just really do not understand why there is a caching proxy, which
>>> is almost nothing can cache in the modern
On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 23:51 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 24/10/2016 9:59 p.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> > Nevertheless, the topic surfaced new details regarding the Vary and
> > I
> > tried conditional requests on same URL (Google Chrome) from
> > different
> > machines/IPs. Here results:
> >
On 24/10/2016 9:59 p.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> Hi Amos,
>
> Thank you very much for so detailed explanation. I've made conclusions
> from presented information. I deeply regret, that the topic took so
> many time from you. I believe, information presented here will be
> helpful for the
24.10.2016 16:42, Alex Crow пишет:
On 24/10/16 11:26, Yuri wrote:
No, Amos, I'm not trolling your or another developers.
I just really do not understand why there is a caching proxy, which
is almost nothing can cache in the modern world. And that in vanilla
version gives a maximum of
On 24/10/16 11:26, Yuri wrote:
No, Amos, I'm not trolling your or another developers.
I just really do not understand why there is a caching proxy, which is
almost nothing can cache in the modern world. And that in vanilla
version gives a maximum of 10-30% byte hit. From me personally, it
No, Amos, I'm not trolling your or another developers.
I just really do not understand why there is a caching proxy, which is
almost nothing can cache in the modern world. And that in vanilla
version gives a maximum of 10-30% byte hit. From me personally, it needs
no justification and no
On Mon, 2016-10-24 at 19:03 +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 24/10/2016 6:28 a.m., gar...@comnet.uz wrote:
> >
> > On 2016-10-23 18:31, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> > >
> > > On 23/10/2016 2:32 a.m., garryd wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Since I started use Squid, it's configuration always RFC
> > > >
On 24/10/2016 6:28 a.m., gar...@comnet.uz wrote:
> On 2016-10-23 18:31, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> On 23/10/2016 2:32 a.m., garryd wrote:
>>> Since I started use Squid, it's configuration always RFC compliant by
>>> default, _but_ there were always knobs for users to make it HTTP
>>> violent. It was
On 2016-10-23 18:31, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 23/10/2016 2:32 a.m., garryd wrote:
Since I started use Squid, it's configuration always RFC compliant by
default, _but_ there were always knobs for users to make it HTTP
violent. It was in hands of users to decide how to handle a web
resource. Now
On 23/10/2016 1:56 a.m., Antony Stone wrote:
> Disclaimer: I am not a Squid developer.
>
> On Saturday 22 October 2016 at 14:43:55, garry wrote:
>
>> IMO:
>>
>> The only reason I believe [explains] why core developers of Squid tend to
>> move HTTP violating settings from average users is to
On 23/10/2016 2:32 a.m., garryd wrote:
> On 2016-10-22 17:56, Antony Stone wrote:
>> Disclaimer: I am not a Squid developer.
>>
>> On Saturday 22 October 2016 at 14:43:55, garryd wrote:
>>
>>> IMO:
>>>
>>> The only reason I believe [explains] why core developers of Squid
>>> tend to
>>> move HTTP
On 23/10/2016 1:43 a.m., gar...@comnet.uz wrote:
>
> Nevertheless, I believe that core developers should publish an
> _official_ explanations regarding the tendency, as it often becomes a
> "center of gravity" of many topics.
>
I did so. Back when these removals started:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
22.10.2016 19:32, gar...@comnet.uz пишет:
> On 2016-10-22 17:56, Antony Stone wrote:
>> Disclaimer: I am not a Squid developer.
>>
>> On Saturday 22 October 2016 at 14:43:55, gar...@comnet.uz wrote:
>>
>>> IMO:
>>>
>>> The only reason I believe
On 2016-10-22 17:56, Antony Stone wrote:
Disclaimer: I am not a Squid developer.
On Saturday 22 October 2016 at 14:43:55, gar...@comnet.uz wrote:
IMO:
The only reason I believe [explains] why core developers of Squid tend
to
move HTTP violating settings from average users is to prevent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I will explain why I am extremely outraged by this position. Every
single major players - both from the Web companies and from suppliers
caching solutions (BlueCoat, ThunderCache etc.) - to one degree or
another violate RFC. And developers of
Disclaimer: I am not a Squid developer.
On Saturday 22 October 2016 at 14:43:55, gar...@comnet.uz wrote:
> IMO:
>
> The only reason I believe [explains] why core developers of Squid tend to
> move HTTP violating settings from average users is to prevent possible
> abuse/misuse.
I believe the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
22.10.2016 18:43, gar...@comnet.uz пишет:
> On 2016-10-22 16:05, Yuri Voinov wrote:
>> Good explanations do not always help to get a good solution. A person
>> needs no explanation and solution.
>>
>> So far I've seen a lot of excellent reasons
On 2016-10-22 16:05, Yuri Voinov wrote:
Good explanations do not always help to get a good solution. A person
needs no explanation and solution.
So far I've seen a lot of excellent reasons why Squid can not do
so-and-so in the normal configuration. However, this explanation does
not help in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
22.10.2016 16:55, gar...@comnet.uz пишет:
> On 2016-10-22 13:53, Rui Lopes wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm trying to receive a cached version of
>> googlechromestandaloneenterprise64.msi with:
>>
>> refresh_pattern
On 2016-10-22 13:53, Rui Lopes wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to receive a cached version of
googlechromestandaloneenterprise64.msi with:
refresh_pattern googlechromestandaloneenterprise64\.msi 4320 100% 4320
override-expire override-lastmod reload-into-ims ignore-reload
ignore-no-store
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Try to use store-ID. Your URL seems dynamic. So, Squid never can cache it.
Don't forget - Google, like many other web companies, actively
counteracts caching. It is likely that you even Store ID will not help.
22.10.2016 14:53, Rui Lopes пишет:
Hello,
I'm trying to receive a cached version
of googlechromestandaloneenterprise64.msi with:
refresh_pattern googlechromestandaloneenterprise64\.msi 4320 100% 4320
override-expire override-lastmod reload-into-ims ignore-reload
ignore-no-store ignore-private
and trying it with the following
29 matches
Mail list logo
