In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ricardo N ewbery writes: >> I see in rfc2616.c that this behavior is intentional. Varnish >> apparently assumes a "clockless" origin server if the Expires date >> is not in the future and then applies the default ttl.
>Regarding this behavior. I would like to suggest to the Varnish >developers that this logic seems faulty. I guess it's reasonable to >assume a bad backend clock if the Date header looks off... but the >Expires header? That particular piece of code is taken pretty directly from RFC2616 with addition of the default_ttl assumption. I'm not at all adverse to changing this code, provided we can agree what the correct heuristics should be. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
