more detail and have an action on sites
that are posting using multipart/form-data as the Content-Type header. This
is mainly to separate action taken on an actual form being submitted
versus a file being submitted or as you stated route request messages based
on the content.
Whether that be logfor
ul 23, 2020 at 11:46 AM Ryan Le wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> I have been looking at the squid debug and can see that it is getting the
> multipart.
>
> POST http://bb.com
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0)
> Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0
> Accept: ap
file8"; filename="translate.zip"
Content-Type: application/x-zip-compressed
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 11:16 AM Alex Rousskov <
rouss...@measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> On 7/23/20 9:22 AM, Ryan Le wrote:
> > I have been trying to configure squid to decode and send multipart form
sorry not decode, just parse to send headers to icap as well.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 9:27 AM Antony Stone <
antony.st...@squid.open.source.it> wrote:
> On Thursday 23 July 2020 at 15:22:56, Ryan Le wrote:
>
> > I have been trying to configure squid to decode and send multipar
I have been trying to configure squid to decode and send multipart form
data to another service. Is there an acl or build parameter needed for
multipart form data support?
Thanks,
Ryan
___
squid-users mailing list
squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org
http:/
wrote:
> On 5/5/20 10:18 AM, Ryan Le wrote:
> > Is there plans to support explicit forward proxy over HTTPS to the proxy
> > with ssl-bump?
>
> There have been a few requests for TLS-inside-TLS support, but I am not
> aware of any actual sponsors or features on the road
Is there plans to support explicit forward proxy over HTTPS to the proxy
with
ssl-bump? We would like to use https_port ssl-bump without using the
intercept or tproxy option. Clients will use PAC with a HTTPS directive
rather than a PROXY directive. The goal is to also encrypted the CONNECT
header
