Cache-control: no-cache

[Jacob Elder]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Tollef Fog Heen <
tfheen at varnish-software.com> wrote:

> ]] Kristian Lyngstol
>
> | Personally, I'm leaning towards keeping the curent behavior, but it's a
> | topic of frequent debate. It's very common to distinguish between
> | web-clients and the reverse proxy - ideally we'd want our own set of
> | headers...
>
> This sounds very much like what Surrogate-Control was designed for.  Not
> that it has seen much uptake, though.
>
>
Wow, I wish I had known about Surrogate-Control before inventing
X-Cache-Alternate for internal use in my organization.

It would probably catch on if Varnish was the reference implementation.


> --
> Tollef Fog Heen
> Varnish Software
> t: +47 21 98 92 64
>
> _______________________________________________
> varnish-misc mailing list
> varnish-misc at varnish-cache.org
> http://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
>



-- 
Jacob Elder
@jelder
(646) 535-3379
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20101214/85b2bb3e/attachment-0003.html>