Return-Path: owner-new-httpd
Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id HAA07562;
 Tue, 1 Aug 1995 07:36:23 -0700
Received: from ooo.lanl.gov by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id
 HAA07557; Tue, 1 Aug 1995 07:36:21 -0700
Received: by ooo.lanl.gov
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA144967740; Tue, 1 Aug 1995 08:35:40 -0600
From: Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov>
Message-Id: <199508011435.AA144967740@ooo.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: Stuff in my sandbox...
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 95 8:35:40 MDT
In-Reply-To: <9508010143.AA24298@volterra>;
 from "Robert S. Thau" at Jul 31, 95 9:43 pm
X-Organization: Theoretical Division, T-8. Los Alamos National Laboratory
X-Snail: LANL Theoretical Divi' T-8, MS B285, P.O Box 1663,
 Los Alamos NM 87545
X-Marks-The-Spot: Doh !
X-Url: http://nqcd.lanl.gov/~hartill/
X-Cessive-Use-Of-Headers: check
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

 
> Also, Cliff's bug report does worry me a bit; it's possible that this is
> just the Netscape reload brain-death (if NetScape does a reload, it sends
> both If-Modified-Since and Pragma: no-cache, and expects the latter to
> negate the effect of the former.  

This is not a bug in Netscape, just an annoying feature, in that no
type of reload can be sent without the i-m-s. Sending both is perfectly
reasonable.. it lets the client resync with the original server.

> With the current release, it probably
> doesn't, so depending on what headers are passed along, the cache may get
> a 304 reply which it wouldn't like very much.  This is *probably* easy to
> fix, and I could toss it in easily).

I believe that Roy said that end servers are not supposed to take any
notice of the Pragma: no-cache.

Earlier NCSA and Apache code certainly didn't check Pragma: no-cache, so
I think the problem must be elsewhere.

> On names... I *really* dislike AbsMaxServers, because (as I've said) just
> having it there invites people to set it too low, and all too many of them
> have shown that they will take up the invitation.  If you don't like
> MaxClients, how about MaxConnections?  (What I want is for the name to
> convey immediately, to someone who is too lazy to read anything else, that
> setting this number too low will screw the server --- MaxServers looks too
> much like things will run slower, but they'll still run).
> 
> rst
> 


rob