Re: [squid-users] [feature request]: Transparent FTP Proxy

2015-10-03 Thread Yuri Voinov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 FTP In 2015 Really?! 04.10.15 3:04, David Touzeau пишет: > Hi > > Since the 3.5.x branch allows FTP gateway, is there any plan to support transparent FTP proxy ? > > Best regards > ___ >

[squid-users] [feature request]: Transparent FTP Proxy

2015-10-03 Thread David Touzeau
Hi Since the 3.5.x branch allows FTP gateway, is there any plan to support transparent FTP proxy ? Best regards ___ squid-users mailing list squid-users@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users

[squid-users] Squid 3.5.10 for Microsoft Windows 64-bit is available

2015-10-03 Thread Rafael Akchurin
Greetings everyone, The CygWin based build of Squid proxy for Microsoft Windows version 3.5.10 is now available (amd64 only!). * Original release notes are at http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.5/squid-3.5.10-RELEASENOTES.html. * Ready to use MSI package can be downloaded from

Re: [squid-users] [feature request]: Transparent FTP Proxy

2015-10-03 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 4/10/2015 10:04 a.m., David Touzeau wrote: > Hi > > Since the 3.5.x branch allows FTP gateway, is there any plan to support > transparent FTP proxy ? > FTP gateway has been supported since Squid-2.4 or something. FTP relay/proxying is what what added in Squid-3.5. NOTE: "Transparency" is

Re: [squid-users] after changed from 3.4.13 to 3.5.8 sslbump doesn't work for the site https://banking.postbank.de/

2015-10-03 Thread Jason Haar
On 03/10/15 19:16, Amos Jeffries wrote: > Anyhow, there have been long periods (12-18 months IIRC) where they > were not trusted as a global CA. If your CA certificates set is from one > of those periods your Squid will not be able to verify trust of the > origin cert. Should that show up in the

Re: [squid-users] after changed from 3.4.13 to 3.5.8 sslbump doesn't work for the site https://banking.postbank.de/

2015-10-03 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 3/10/2015 7:08 a.m., Jason Haar wrote: > On 02/10/15 23:43, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> I'm suspecting the order of these options screws things up. Or maybe >> just the use of "ALL". sslproxy_options NO_SSLv2:NO_SSLv3:ALL > > ...but I don't even use sslproxy_options There have been at least 3