Support Cache-Control no-cache/private as per RFC2616 ?

Dag-Erling Smørgrav des at
Tue Nov 20 11:53:18 CET 2007

"BUSTARRET, Jean-francois" <jfbustarret at> writes:
> Yet says "Varnish was
> written from the ground up to be a high performance caching reverse
> proxy." Varnish is a cache, and should follow HTTP/1.1 RFCs.

Excuse me, but who are you to tell us what Varnish is or is not?  Do
you realize how arrogant that is?

That aside, you are trying to fit Varnish into an RFC2616 pigeonhole,
but there is no pigeonhole that fits - RFC2616 did not anticipate
anything like Varnish.  There is a draft W3 specification, the Edge
Architecture Specification, which attempts to fill that hole, but it
is not widely known, so I'm not sure it would help much to write that
Varnish is an HTTP surrogate rather than an HTTP accelerator (I try to
avoid the term "reverse proxy").

Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS -

More information about the varnish-dev mailing list