Re: RFC2616 vs negative_ttl

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> See also:
> http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1917
>

Patch added to that bug to both fix the problem (I think) and make the
related policy change needed for HTTP compliance.

I know the Squid-2 code in this area even less than I know the Squid-3.
But the fix part appears simple enough it should be back-ported easily
to 2.x

>
> On 29/05/2008, at 12:31 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
>> http://www.squid-cache.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2364
>>
>> The default setting of negative_ttl is an HTTP/1.1 violation. Do we have
>> any good reasons not to make it default to zero (non-cached)?
>>

Amos

-- 
Please use Squid 2.7.STABLE1 or 3.0.STABLE6