Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id WAA15117; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 22:06:19 -0800 Received: from fully.organic.com by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA15102; Tue, 6 Feb 1996 22:06:16 -0800 Received: (from brian@localhost) by fully.organic.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06883; Wed, 7 Feb 1996 06:09:21 GMT Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 22:09:19 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Behlendorf To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com cc: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: Two new modules (controlling Expires header) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, David Robinson wrote: > There is absolutely no good reason to change the expiry date on an file > simply because it was accessed. Why not? That's how DNS works, pretty effectively too. Let's face it - for most documents out there there *is* no date at which the document "goes bad", in the same way that milk goes bad. At least in the opinions of the authors, which is all that matters here. Brian --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/