On Wed 10 Sep, 1997, Matthew Petach <mattp@Internex.NET> wrote:
>Understood, which is one of the reasons it won't
>work. Trying to educate 10,000 users that they
>can't simply use ftp:// as a valid protocol portion
>in a URL in netscape anymore, nor can they use
>news:, nor gopher:, but only http: is a daunting
>task. :(
(well, Squid doesn't deal with news anyway.)
Meantime, only force port 80 through the cache, (you say something breaks with
MSN authentication, if authentication isn't working then it sounds like
something that wouldn't work with Squid in its normal cacheing role; which is
something we here would definitely like to hear about in more detail).
>We'll have to write something to handle proxying
>and caching all of the bulk protocols. :(
I'd suggest working on the necessary changes and enhancements to Squid. You
might even consider joining the developers list, and thrashing out the ideas
with the people there - you never know, they might be of some assistance in
getting something that would work.
Handling gopher will be moderately easy - there never tends to be more than one
name to reach a gopher site (so little duplication, cf utilising the Host:
header with http requests where it exists). FTP would be awkward, for many
reasons not least that it's not an easy protocol to proxy with firewall
technologies, let alone arranging to intercept the control port and divert it
to another system.
Has anyone got their hands on Cisco's Cache Engine/ Cache Director combination
yet? Are there any specifications out there for their 'web cache control
protocol'? Anyone got any real technical information, other than the marketting
stuff in their 'white paper'?
James.
Received on Wed Sep 10 1997 - 15:57:31 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:36:59 MST