Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007 13:38:59 schrieben Sie: > I want to do precisely the opposite. It should affect only a single > machine. It would even be better if it would affect only a single > account on that machine.
Affecting only a single machine/a single account has nothing to do with the fact that you manage and implement it centrally; the two concepts are orthogonal. Basically, this should come around to giving squid (from what I'd do in your case) different rule sets based on authentication to the proxy and/or originating IP in your internal network, which leads to different behaviour depending on the accessing person/program. Basically, why I personally rather like the squid (i.e., proxy-based) approach to ad-blocking is the fact that if you try to do this at a lower level than the HTTP-level, there's bound to be pages that display wrong/broken, simply because not being able to fetch images (because they supposedly come from "localhost") means that most browsers are not going to display the space reserved to it and will mess up the page layout, even when specifying width= _and_ height= in an img-tag (when only specifying one of the attributes or none, the page layout will be broken anyway). Opera is my favourite candidate for messing up page layouts in this case. On another note, Opera has an (IMHO) huge timeout for failed (i.e., refused, not timed out) connections to the target host, and if many images refer to localhost through some DNS or hosts magic, this is going to majorly slow down page display/buildup on non-css based layouts, which sadly there still are enough out there (and for some of which the ad-slots are an integral part of the page layout, such as some german news sites). If you do the blocking at the topmost level (i.e., through squid or some other HTTP proxy), the proxy can generate an empty/transparent image with the appropriate proportions to fill the now void space, which the extension I referenced earlier will do automatically for you. This doesn't stop the connection to the ad host from happening (i.e., isn't a traffic saver, but who cares about that nowadays I'd say), but it does stop the end-user from seeing the ad (and/or its content). It even allows you more fine-grained control over which URLs to block, so that you don't have to filter by host specifically, but might also filter by directory (which is required at some sites, as the ads/unwanted content comes from the same host as the actual content you're interested in). It's a matter of choice how much duress you want the end-user to endure, basically, seeing that user-based discrimination on a proxy also requires authentication (unless you implement packet redirects on the end-user machines to different ports of the firewall depending on the user originating the outgoing packet, but this is just as bad to keep synchronized in the end). But, anyway, it would be my way to go to achieve what you're trying to do efficiently. Just my 5 (Euro)-cents. -- Heiko Wundram Product & Application Development _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"