On 06/12/2014 03:01 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 12/06/2014 8:09 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 06/11/2014 05:15 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 06/10/2014 12:09 AM, Kinkie wrote:
I had understood that it would eventually be a catch-all directive
for all squid service ports (possibly including FTP
On 12/06/2014 8:09 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 06/11/2014 05:15 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 06/10/2014 12:09 AM, Kinkie wrote:
I had understood that it would eventually be a catch-all directive
for all squid service ports (possibly including FTP etc).
That was indeed the long term
tor 2014-06-12 klockan 21:01 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
When FTP transfer protocol is added is the time to determine if the fpt_
prefix is actually necesary or the *existing* protocol= parameter can be
used alone. FWIW the only strong reason http_ and https_ are currently
used is to determine
After reading the thread a bit more I understood what the change was
about and I seem to understand what Alex is writing about.
we have
snmp_port
icp_port
http_port
https_port
htcp_port
announce_port (this first time I noticed it)
mcast_miss_port
And it's pretty self explanatory and descriptive
On 11/06/2014 2:35 a.m., Francesco wrote:
On 10 Jun 2014, at 16:29, Alex Rousskov rouss...@measurement-factory.com
wrote:
On 06/10/2014 12:09 AM, Kinkie wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 06/08/2014 11:07 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
I propose that we combine the
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Alex Rousskov
rouss...@measurement-factory.com wrote:
On 06/08/2014 11:07 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
I propose that we combine the http_port and https_port directives into
a single directive called port with the old names as aliases and an
option to select
On 06/10/2014 12:09 AM, Kinkie wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 06/08/2014 11:07 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
I propose that we combine the http_port and https_port directives into
a single directive called port with the old names as aliases and an
option to select
On 10 Jun 2014, at 16:29, Alex Rousskov rouss...@measurement-factory.com
wrote:
On 06/10/2014 12:09 AM, Kinkie wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 06/08/2014 11:07 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
I propose that we combine the http_port and https_port directives into
a
On 06/10/2014 08:35 AM, Francesco wrote:
On 10 Jun 2014, at 16:29, Alex Rousskov rouss...@measurement-factory.com
wrote:
On 06/10/2014 12:09 AM, Kinkie wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 06/08/2014 11:07 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
I propose that we combine the
Sounds like a good idea to me.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Amos Jeffries squ...@treenet.co.nz wrote:
Hi,
I propose that we combine the http_port and https_port directives into
a single directive called port with the old names as aliases and an
option to select between TCP and TLS
On 06/09/2014 11:13 AM, Kinkie wrote:
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Sounds nice.
Out of exact context:
I have seen proxy products that uses multiple connections with VPN to a
proxy box in order to achieve maximum bandwidth.
Something like line aggregation but only to cover the slow speed of
On 06/08/2014 11:07 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
I propose that we combine the http_port and https_port directives into
a single directive called port with the old names as aliases and an
option to select between TCP and TLS transport protocol.
Just port is a bad name, IMO, because there are many
12 matches
Mail list logo
