There is a case, it's just not a sound case given the drawbacks and lack of *necessity*, as described in that email. Again, IMHO. -- kb
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Michael Fischer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Ken Brownfield <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd also add that by definition, SSL represents data that is secure between >> the server and the user. Caching that data (or having it even pass through >> a cache) is conceptually incompatible. >> >> Obviously, SSL pages often contain static content (images), which would be >> nice to serve from a cache. > > Well, which is it? Is there a use case for SSL support in a caching > proxy, or isn't there? I don't follow your argument. > > --Michael _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.varnish-cache.org/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
