[varnish] Re: Handling of cache-control

[Michael Fischer]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Ricardo Newbery <ric at digitalmarbles.com>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20100119/d640129c/attachment-0001.html>