On 30/11/2016 6:58 a.m., erdosain9 wrote:
> Hi
> i want to know if it's possible bypass the request that go to a local
> server.
>
> Like if im in 192.168.1.15 and want to go to 192.168.1.20 (server) (or from
> 192.168.1.5 to 192.168.6.10).
>
> I know that this is possible from the web browser
On 30/11/2016 7:11 a.m., erdosain9 wrote:
> "It sounds like many of your users have already been trained to think
> that"
>
> its exactly like that. If a light bulb break... was the proxy.. if a
> chair is broken... was the proxy... so i want for a while at least avoid
> this complaints
"It sounds like many of your users have already been trained to think
that"
its exactly like that. If a light bulb break... was the proxy.. if a
chair is broken... was the proxy... so i want for a while at least avoid
this complaints
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
Hi
i want to know if it's possible bypass the request that go to a local
server.
Like if im in 192.168.1.15 and want to go to 192.168.1.20 (server) (or from
192.168.1.5 to 192.168.6.10).
I know that this is possible from the web browser configuration, but want to
know if it is possible doing
On 30/11/2016 5:09 a.m., erdosain9 wrote:
> Thanks.
> Anyway i have another issue... when, for example, a web have a bad
> certificate... then squid show "the error page of bad certificate and no
> connect..."... then i have "oh, fucking proxy". and i want to avoid that
> kind of error too... so,
Thanks.
Anyway i have another issue... when, for example, a web have a bad
certificate... then squid show "the error page of bad certificate and no
connect..."... then i have "oh, fucking proxy". and i want to avoid that
kind of error too... so, i stick with just the same page for all error (if i
Amos Jeffries wrote
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ok thank you, there is a plan to add this ? Without identification we are
>> in the fog all bumped requests are only recorded with 127.0.0.1
>>
>
> Eventually, yes. I'm not aware of anyone actually working on it at
> present though.
>
> Amos
>
>
On Tue, November 29, 2016 03:59, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 29/11/2016 7:49 a.m., Walter H. wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> On 28.11.2016 14:51, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
>>> Now to me the picture is much clear technically.
>>> As Amos suggested fix the first proxy(and I am adding choose how to
>>> approach)
Hello,
On Mon, November 28, 2016 22:45, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> So much clear now to a solution.
> If you don’t know what Policy Based Routing and you have a bunch of VM's
and you are configuring the proxy in the browser manually you just need
to install on the first proxy 3.5.22 that allows
