ux System Administrator
Mobile: +972-5-28704261
Email: elie...@ngtech.co.il
-Original Message-
From: squid-users [mailto:squid-users-boun...@lists.squid-cache.org] On Behalf
Of boruc
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:53 PM
To: squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org
Subject: [squid-users] Not all
You'r welcome.
I do not understand what the hell you have clung to me. I have my own
point of view on the problem. Tell tales of the guy who started this
thread. I know the developer's position.
So, let's stop useless discussion. This is wasted time only.
01.02.2017 21:48, Amos Jeffries пишет:
On 28/01/2017 1:35 a.m., Yuri wrote:
>
> I just want to have a choice and an opportunity to say - "F*ck you, man,
> I'm the System Administrator".
Does that go down well in parties or something?
>
> If you do not want to violate the RFC - remove violations HTTP at all.
> If you remember, this
im not here to fight dont mention RFC caus its alredy violating RFC just
using enable-http-violations
pls re read my post or get someone to translate the structure of it
else no benefit explaining or protecting RFC shit
so pls careful reading my point of view else waisting time with one year
27.01.2017 19:35, Garri Djavadyan пишет:
> On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 17:58 +0600, Yuri wrote:
>> 27.01.2017 17:54, Garri Djavadyan пишет:
>>> On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 15:47 +0600, Yuri wrote:
--2017-01-27 15:29:54-- https://www.microsoft.com/ru-kz/
Connecting to 127.0.0.1:3128... connected.
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 06:15 -0800, joseph wrote:
> hi its not about https scheme its about evrything
Hi,
First of all, I can't brag about my English and writing style, but your
writing style is _very_ offensive to other members. Please, try it
better. First of all, it is very difficult to catch
hi its not about https scheme its about evrything
i decide not to involve with arg...
but why not its the last one i should say it once
they ar right most of the ppl admin have no knwoleg so its ok to baby sit
them as its
but
--enable-http-violations should be fully ignore cache control and in
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 17:58 +0600, Yuri wrote:
>
> 27.01.2017 17:54, Garri Djavadyan пишет:
> > On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 15:47 +0600, Yuri wrote:
> > > --2017-01-27 15:29:54-- https://www.microsoft.com/ru-kz/
> > > Connecting to 127.0.0.1:3128... connected.
> > > Proxy request sent, awaiting
27.01.2017 18:25, Antony Stone пишет:
On Friday 27 January 2017 at 13:15:21, Yuri wrote:
27.01.2017 18:05, Antony Stone пишет:
You're entitled to do whatever you want to, following standards and
recommendations or not - just don't complain when choosing not to follow
those standards and
On Friday 27 January 2017 at 13:15:21, Yuri wrote:
> 27.01.2017 18:05, Antony Stone пишет:
>
> > You're entitled to do whatever you want to, following standards and
> > recommendations or not - just don't complain when choosing not to follow
> > those standards and recommendations results in
27.01.2017 18:05, Antony Stone пишет:
On Friday 27 January 2017 at 12:58:52, Yuri wrote:
Again. What is the difference? I open it from different workstations,
from different browsers - I see the same thing. The code is identical. I
can is to cache? Yes or no?
You're entitled to do whatever
On Friday 27 January 2017 at 12:58:52, Yuri wrote:
> Again. What is the difference? I open it from different workstations,
> from different browsers - I see the same thing. The code is identical. I
> can is to cache? Yes or no?
You're entitled to do whatever you want to, following standards and
I understand that I want to conclusively prove its case. But for the
sake of objectivity - dynamically generated only dynamic pages? Maybe
the solution is still the administrator to leave? If I see that
something is broken or users complain about me - directive *cache deny*
already canceled?
27.01.2017 17:54, Garri Djavadyan пишет:
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 15:47 +0600, Yuri wrote:
--2017-01-27 15:29:54-- https://www.microsoft.com/ru-kz/
Connecting to 127.0.0.1:3128... connected.
Proxy request sent, awaiting response...
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store
On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 15:47 +0600, Yuri wrote:
> --2017-01-27 15:29:54-- https://www.microsoft.com/ru-kz/
> Connecting to 127.0.0.1:3128... connected.
> Proxy request sent, awaiting response...
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store
> Pragma: no-cache
> Content-Type:
27.01.2017 9:10, Amos Jeffries пишет:
On 27/01/2017 9:46 a.m., Yuri Voinov wrote:
27.01.2017 2:44, Matus UHLAR - fantomas пишет:
26.01.2017 2:22, boruc пишет:
After a little bit of analyzing requests and responses with WireShark I
noticed that many sites that weren't cached had different
On 27/01/2017 9:46 a.m., Yuri Voinov wrote:
>
>
> 27.01.2017 2:44, Matus UHLAR - fantomas пишет:
>>> 26.01.2017 2:22, boruc пишет:
After a little bit of analyzing requests and responses with WireShark I
noticed that many sites that weren't cached had different
combination of
On 27/01/2017 9:44 a.m., Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> 26.01.2017 2:22, boruc пишет:
>>> After a little bit of analyzing requests and responses with WireShark I
>>> noticed that many sites that weren't cached had different combination of
>>> below parameters:
>>>
>>> Cache-Control: no-cache,
On 27/01/2017 11:08 a.m., reinerotto wrote:
>> reply_header_access Cache-Control deny all<
> Will this only affect downstream caches, or will this squid itself also
> ignore any Cache-Control header info
> received from upstream ?
>
It will only affect the clients caches. eg. their browser
>reply_header_access Cache-Control deny all<
Will this only affect downstream caches, or will this squid itself also
ignore any Cache-Control header info
received from upstream ?
--
View this message in context:
27.01.2017 2:44, Matus UHLAR - fantomas пишет:
>> 26.01.2017 2:22, boruc пишет:
>>> After a little bit of analyzing requests and responses with WireShark I
>>> noticed that many sites that weren't cached had different
>>> combination of
>>> below parameters:
>>>
>>> Cache-Control: no-cache,
26.01.2017 2:22, boruc пишет:
After a little bit of analyzing requests and responses with WireShark I
noticed that many sites that weren't cached had different combination of
below parameters:
Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate, post-check, pre-check,
private, public, max-age,
On 26/01/2017 9:44 a.m., Yuri Voinov wrote:
>
>
> 26.01.2017 2:22, boruc пишет:
>> After a little bit of analyzing requests and responses with WireShark I
>> noticed that many sites that weren't cached had different combination of
>> below parameters:
>>
>> Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store,
26.01.2017 2:22, boruc пишет:
> After a little bit of analyzing requests and responses with WireShark I
> noticed that many sites that weren't cached had different combination of
> below parameters:
>
> Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate, post-check, pre-check,
> private, public,
After a little bit of analyzing requests and responses with WireShark I
noticed that many sites that weren't cached had different combination of
below parameters:
Cache-Control: no-cache, no-store, must-revalidate, post-check, pre-check,
private, public, max-age, public
Pragma: no-cache
There is
Hi everyone,
I was wondering why some of visited pages are not being cached (I mean
"main" pages, like www.example.com). If I visit 50 pages only 10 will be
cached. Below text is from log files:
store.log:
1485272001.646 RELEASE -1 04F7FA9EAA7FE3D531A2224F4C7DDE5A 200
1485272011
26 matches
Mail list logo
