OK so I will stick with the default since it makes more sense that it fit's
most of the regular use cases.
If someone needs a special build he should be able to handle a self compiled
squid.
Thanks,
Eliezer
Eliezer Croitoru
Linux System Administrator
Mobile: +972-5-28704261
Email: elie...@
On 29/03/2017 11:07 a.m., senor wrote:
> Previous questions on this list referred to using the capath= option
> to https_port directive to fill in certificates missing in the chain
> to the Root CA trusted by the clients. I can not seem to get that to
> work.
>
> I see no error in parsing even wit
On 31/03/2017 9:22 p.m., CrossfireAUT wrote:
> Hello Squid-Community!
>
> I need your help with a rather non-standard config.
> My aim is as following:
> -> Users that use my proxy (will deploy it via group policy in AD) should be
> able to use my proxy without authentication
If you have such a t
On 4/04/2017 4:24 p.m., Heiler Bemerguy wrote:
> Dudes, are these escaped characters right, for refresh_pattern syntax?
>
> *refresh_pattern -i personal\.avira\-update.com.*\.(gz|idx|lz)$ 40320
> 80% 120960 override-expire ignore-private ignore-no-store store-stale
> ignore-reload ignore-must-reva
Dudes, are these escaped characters right, for refresh_pattern syntax?
*refresh_pattern -i personal\.avira\-update.com.*\.(gz|idx|lz)$ 40320
80% 120960 override-expire ignore-private ignore-no-store store-stale
ignore-reload ignore-must-revalidate*
--
Atenciosamente / Best Regards,
Heiler B
On 3/04/2017 8:38 p.m., Eric Veiras Galisson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
>> That Squid->server connection has zero difference between the browser
>> and the command line tool connecting to a reverse-proxy, or when both
>> are using opaque (non-Bumped) CONNECT t
On 4/04/2017 9:51 a.m., Yuri Voinov wrote:
>
> 04.04.2017 3:10, Eliezer Croitoru пишет:
>> Why relevant to BlueCoat and not squid?
>> It happens for the users for both systems and google clearly states that
>> it's related to this specific ip activity.
> Ah. You don't said it first. So, may be bo
On 4/04/2017 7:39 a.m., Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> Amos still the question in hands is very simple:
> Would it matter if I will upper the limit to 16384?
> For example would it result in some memory overhead?
The usual answer applies - "it depends".
Some of the I/O modules (eg select and poll) re
On 4/04/2017 3:06 a.m., Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> IE I want the only the users which their certificates are in a file
>>> will be able to use the proxy?
>>> The other side is that squid as a client will posses and use a client
>>> side certificate.
>>> Which of the above is possible on late
04.04.2017 3:10, Eliezer Croitoru пишет:
> Why relevant to BlueCoat and not squid?
> It happens for the users for both systems and google clearly states that it's
> related to this specific ip activity.
Ah. You don't said it first. So, may be bot behind proxy. Or.. skew
routing to tor-like e
Why relevant to BlueCoat and not squid?
It happens for the users for both systems and google clearly states that it's
related to this specific ip activity.
(while bing and others works just fine)
Eliezer
Eliezer Croitoru
Linux System Administrator
Mobile: +972-5-28704261
Email: elie...@ngte
I guess an issue relevant to BlueCoat, not to Squid.
AFAIK BlueCoat ignores RFC. Squid - not.
04.04.2017 1:45, Eliezer Croitoru пишет:
> Hey List,
>
> I got couple complains from couple sysadmins about google forcing their
> clients to verify that they are indeed humans in some very horrible way
Hey List,
I got couple complains from couple sysadmins about google forcing their
clients to verify that they are indeed humans in some very horrible ways.
But when they are logged in as a user it's "all good" and the search is
working properly.
These networks are using Squid and BlueCoat for 1k u
Amos still the question in hands is very simple:
Would it matter if I will upper the limit to 16384?
For example would it result in some memory overhead?
Thanks,
Eliezer
Eliezer Croitoru
Linux System Administrator
Mobile: +972-5-28704261
Email: elie...@ngtech.co.il
-Original Message---
On 04/03/2017 09:06 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> iirs this was not supported by browsers, does any support ssl-proxy
> connections?
Yes, IIRC, FireFox and Chrome (at least) support SSL connections to
proxies, but configuration of that feature is "hidden". You should be
able to find several
IE I want the only the users which their certificates are in a file will be
able to use the proxy?
The other side is that squid as a client will posses and use a client side
certificate.
Which of the above is possible on latest stable(3.5)?
On 04.04.17 03:03, Amos Jeffries wrote:
Same things
On 2/04/2017 8:59 p.m., Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> For Incoming and outgoing connections?
Yes.
> IE I want the only the users which their certificates are in a file will be
> able to use the proxy?
> The other side is that squid as a client will posses and use a client side
> certificate.
> Whi
On 2/04/2017 9:01 p.m., Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> Well I can patch the RPM I am publishing with such a things but I will need
> Amos Or Alex describe to me the possible effects such a patch and in what
> limits we are talking about.
>
> Amos, Alex:
> What do you think about including a patch to
On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 1/04/2017 4:42 a.m., Eric Veiras Galisson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> >
> >> On 31/03/2017 4:01 a.m., Eric Veiras Galisson wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I want to setup Squid as a HTTPS reverse pro
How many ports do you need?
Depends on the number I will decide if to patch Squid RPM's.
Thanks,
Eliezer
Eliezer Croitoru
Linux System Administrator
Mobile: +972-5-28704261
Email: elie...@ngtech.co.il
-Original Message-
From: squid-users [mailto:squid-users-boun...@lists.squid-cach
20 matches
Mail list logo
