Quote:
Originally Posted by tdadyslexia
This is the code.
Code:
<meta http-equiv="Pragma" content="no-cache">
As I said NTL did obey this code, I know this with me been on NTL, thay did cache the pages before I put the code on the pages. |
You do know that many caches don't read those tags, and even if they do this meta tag doesn't mean the page isn't stored in the cache as there's no obligation on caches or browsers to honour it? The HTTP standards do not set an obligation to honour this at all.
If you want to ensure the cache complies you actually need to use HTTP 1.1 cache control headers.
You may find
this webpage useful as it both intelligently discusses caching, explains properly how to ensure your content isn't cached, and gives some discussion as to why obsessively setting pages to not be cached isn't necessarily a good idea.
I suspect you'll ignore that bit and start obsessively adding no-store cache-controls to your pages but *shrug* it's your bandwidth costs
It's worth noting that some hardware, which caches at the bitstream level, will cache your pages anyway. I work for a company which manufactures such hardware and neither we nor any of the other vendors in that market have had any lawsuits from any content providers, still if you want to be the first that's your prerogative.
Again, how do you know you weren't being served pages from the cache? You have just said that you know because you were on ntl - how did you know?
In a number of cases the response to that meta-tag from caches that actually honour it is to cache the data and validate with the source site in a similar manner to how they react to the cache-control no-cache header, then serve the page from disk anyway so they are storing your content.
Just a few points. There seem to be some quite gaping holes in knowledge on one side of this argument which don't really advance the issue. Few things undermine one's argument as much as making statements which are incorrect.
You're aware P2P caching is legal I take it? As are Usenet / NNTP servers? I would suggest this is rather more shaky legally thian ignoring a non-compulsory tag in website code. If Cisco / Microsoft / Yahoo / Google aren't suing ISPs for caching their IP I can't say I rate your chances too highly to be honest.