RE: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

really seen a compelling reason to move away from clamav, but others may have different viewpoints. -Original Message- From: chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:24 PM To: discussion@pfsense.com Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering Gary

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

e adequate. I wonder what sort of deal Fprot would offer? -Gary -Original Message- From: chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:41 AM To: discussion@pfsense.com Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering Scott Ullrich wrote: Last I ch

RE: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

be curious to see if the $500 license would be adequate. -Gary -Original Message- From: chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:41 AM To: discussion@pfsense.com Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering Scott Ullrich wrote: >Last I checked

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

do not think that the IPCop developers have measured to what extent the addons have popularized the project. -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: Co

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

t there > have been 2.5 million downloads of it in one year. I do not think that the > IPCop developers have measured to what extent the addons have popularized > the project. > > > > > > -Gary > > -Original Message- > From: chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

k that the IPCop developers have measured to what extent the addons have popularized the project.   -Gary -Original Message- From: chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 9:05 AM To: discussion@pfsense.com Subject: Re: [pfSense-disc

RE: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

bject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering Gary Buckmaster wrote: > 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. are you sure about DCC? The

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

Gary Buckmaster wrote: 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. are you sure about DCC? The Distributed Checksum Clearinghouse source carries a license

RE: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

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 th

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

al Message- From: chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 6:06 PM To: discussion@pfsense.com Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering Michael Capp wrote: Chris, This is on my TODO list as part of the Squid packaging. I&#

RE: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

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?  If so, it will not do the same job that squid+squ

Re: [pfSense-discussion] Re: Content Filtering

Michael Capp wrote: Chris, This is on my TODO list as part of the Squid packaging. I'm trying to stabilize the Squid package first with authentication (RADIUS, LDAP, Local, etc.) and once complete will move onto Squidguard. The option to enable as a redirector is already there, but won't