On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Michael S. Fischer wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> and I don't wan't upstream caches or browsers to cache that long, >> only >> varnish, so setting headers doesn't seem to fit. > > Why not? Just curious. If it's truly cachable content, it seems as > though it would make sense (both for your performance and your > bandwidth outlays) to let browsers cache. > > --Michael
Can't speak for the OP but a common use case is where you want an aggressive cache but still need to retain the ability to purge the cache when content changes. As far as I know, there are only two ways to do this without contaminating downstream caches with potentially stale content... via special treatment in the varnish config (which is what the OP is trying to do) or using a special header that only your varnish instance will recognize (like Surrogate-Control, which as far as I know Varnish does not support out-of-the-box but Squid3 does). Ric _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list varnish-misc@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
