Hi, Sorry for my late reply, but i had a couple of out-of-office days and i was not able to write.
You are right, in the second request there is no "If-Modified-Since" in the communication between the varnish-backend, but between the client-varnish there is a "If-Modified-Since" (this can be verified in the varnish logs attached before), so varnish some how is asking for a unconditional GET, and ignoring the "If-Modified-Since", like Tollef also stated in a later reply to this thread On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Tollef Fog Heen <[email protected]> wrote: > ]] Daniel Rodriguez [...] > Your backend seems to reply with 304 to an unconditional GET request, > which is quite odd. So there is no way to get this to work as as i want?. I'm also interested in the reason of why it's a bad idea to set a a max-age value on a 304 response, and open to any suggestion. Best Regards, On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Bedis 9 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > It sounds good that Varnish does not cache a 304 answer ;) > In the second request, you have no "If-Modified-Since" headers in your > request and your origin seems to answer you with a 304, which is not > realy what varnish should expect! > > By the way, it's a very bad idea to setup a Cache-Control header with > a max-age value on a 304 response. > > cheers > > [...] _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
