> -----Original Message----- > From: Rainer Jung [mailto: > Sent: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 09:40 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: ProxyBlock question > > On 24.07.2012 08:58, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Joe Orton > Sent: Montag, 23. Juli 2012 22:06 > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: ProxyBlock question > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 03:41:19PM -0400, Eric Covener wrote: > >>>> b) if it's not the desired behaviour, that's a lot more messy. > >>> > >>> I had assumed this was a bug in the checking but apparently never > >>> brought it here correctly. > >> > >> Ah ha! I hadn't checked the list archives, sorry - you did indeed > post > >> on this, and there's even a patch. Thanks Eric, I will take a > further > >> look now. > > > > Thanks Joe. IMHO the current behaviour is a bug. > > I also agree. The usefulness of the current behaviour is very limited > whereas checking the request URL would be the expected behaviour. > > The old post mentioned by Joe (2005) can be found at: > > http://marc.info/?t=111446232900002&r=1&w=2
Thanks. The patch reminded me of a special situation where the patch might not be suitable: If the forward proxy just forwards everything to the next proxy e.g. because it cannot do DNS lookups of the target URL's Regards Rüdiger
