<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3059" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"If the no-cache directive does not specify a
field-name, then a cache MUST NOT use the response to satisfy a subsequent
request without successful revalidation with the origin server. This allows an
origin server to prevent caching even by caches that have been configured to
return stale responses to client requests."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.9.1">http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.9.1</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>varnish currently only uses max-age to check
the cacheability of objects. This can be done with some vcl code, but IMHO vcl
is not the right place.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=917105309-14112007><FONT face=Arial size=2>Why not fully
support RFC2616 caching ?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>Jean-François Bustarret</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=1><STRONG>WAT - Responsable
technique</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><STRONG><FONT face=Tahoma
size=1>http://www.wat.tv</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>