RE: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

[Gary Buckmaster]

Chris,   The big problem there is that dansguardian is licensed to be free only for non-commercial use.  The same is true for DCC which is a component of copfilter.  This means that while businesses are using these tools, they're using them in violation of their license.  I don't know how the authors of pfSense feel about putting license encumbered packages together.    -Gary -----Original Message----- From: chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:05 AM To: discussion@pfsense.com Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering Gary Buckmaster wrote: Chris,   I'm looking at the web page for copfilter and it's a decent enough looking project, although it seems to be geared more towards virus and spam filtering for email, and virus filtering of http traffic.  Is that an accurate statement?  Yes that would be an accurate statement. However the biggest issue with IPcop and addons such as copfilter is that when IpCop is updated is breaks the addon. If so, it will not do the same job that squid+squidGuard is accomplishing.  copfilter has further addons such as dansguardian . which has the same function as squidguard. Also, since copfilter incorporates a few license-encumbered components (i.e.: DCC) it would not be appropriate for businesses who want to use pfSense.  I think that it is the features and functions of copfilter that make it so popular, not necessarily particular components. I notice that its proponents implement it in businesses rather than home users, so the content filtering is more popular among business users where as squidguard, urlfilter and dansguardian seem to be more popular among home users.   -Gary