On 08/12/2018 06:57 PM, Julian Perconti wrote:
>> De: Alex Rousskov
>> Enviado el: domingo, 12 de agosto de 2018 20:50
>> Para: Julian Perconti ;
>> squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org
>> Asunto: Re: [squid-users] About SSL peek-n-splice/bump configurations
>>
>> On 08/12/2018 04:09 PM, Julian Perc
On 13/08/18 12:30, John Renzi Manzo wrote:
> Good day team squid,
> Please help me,
> I am using squid 3.0 in our windows server 2012 r2, i
> already configure it.
First thing is please try an upgrade. Squid-3.0 was deprecated in 2010.
For more current packages s
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Alex Rousskov
> Enviado el: domingo, 12 de agosto de 2018 20:50
> Para: Julian Perconti ; squid-users@lists.squid-
> cache.org
> Asunto: Re: [squid-users] About SSL peek-n-splice/bump configurations
>
> On 08/12/2018 04:09 PM, Julian Perconti wrote:
>
> > I wou
Good day team squid,
Please help me,
I am using squid 3.0 in our windows server 2012 r2, i
already configure it.
Ban sites and allow specific ip addresses to browse all
sites, but the problem is is i cannot open our website. Please see attached
fil
On 08/12/2018 04:09 PM, Julian Perconti wrote:
> I would like to know which of these two cfg's are "better" or "more secure"
> when a site/domain is spliced, bumped, etc.
It is impossible to answer that question without knowing how _you_
define "better" or "more secure".
> acl noBumpSites ssl::
Hi,
I would like to know which of these two cfg's are "better" or "more secure"
when a site/domain is spliced, bumped, etc.
Here the lines...
# mandatory lines:
acl noBumpSites ssl::server_name_regex -i "/etc/squid/url.nobump"
acl step1 at_step SslBump1
acl step2 at_step SslBump2
acl step3 at_
On 12/08/18 01:35, Antony Stone wrote:
> On Saturday 11 August 2018 at 15:26:40, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/18 09:43, Antony Stone wrote:
>>> On Friday 10 August 2018 at 20:13:06, erdosain9 wrote:
Thanks to all!!
Now is working fine.
Just, one question to know... i make
