On Jan 19, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Michael Fischer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Ricardo Newbery <[email protected] > > wrote: > > Other than the private token, the other thing I used to do to tell > Varnish and clients to cache differently is to attach a special header > like X-CacheInVarnishOnly or some such (support in Varnish for > Surrogate-Control would be a better solution). But recently, I came > across another strategy. As far as I can tell, there is no good > usecase for a non-zero s-maxage token outside your reverse-proxy. So > now I just use the s-maxage token to tell Varnish how to cache and > then strip it from the response headers (or reset to s-maxage=0) to > avoid contaminating any forward proxies downstream. > > This seems logical to me. Are there any drawbacks to using > Surrogate-Control? > > --Michael
Not that I'm aware of. Except that only Squid 3.x supports it right now ;-) Cheers, Ricardo Newbery http://digitalmarbles.com _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
