On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Andreas Plesner Jacobsen <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>> safest option? Hard coding 120s sound evil to me.
>
> No, since Varnish is not a cache in the RFC2616 sense. You're expected to
> configure your own policy. You can easily check for header presence in VCL and
> set TTL accordingly.
I'm wondering what you mean by this? In what ways does varnish not
follow RFC 2616's recommendations / requirements for an HTTP cache? Do
you simply mean that this is because varnish is meant to be used in an
organization's internal infrastructure and that the RFC's language
about caching seems to be more in reference to downstream caches run
by third party organizations that are neither the client nor
associated with the organizations responsible for the original
content?
[snip]
> Andreas
>
Thanks,
jlight
_______________________________________________
varnish-misc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
