[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proxy server policy [was Re: gated]

On Thu, Dec 11, 1997 at 12:15:11PM -0500, Charles Briscoe-Smith wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> >On 10 Dec 1997, Charles Briscoe-Smith wrote:
> >> ...and so on.  I'm not sure that you can ever have a scheme that will work
> >> for -all- the wierd and wonderful proxies, caches and firewalls out there.
> >> 
> >> (This cache is something that was knocked up locally, I think.  It's
> >> integrated with the HENSA mirrors, but fetches updates to individual
> >> files on demand, too.)
> >
> >Yes, this is most unusual. If it was created locally I would suggest you
> >use something more 'normal' for instance:
> [...]
> Knocked up locally, but not by me, I'm afraid.  And since it now
> certainly has hundreds (or maybe thousands) of users, I suspect it would
> be impractical to change it now...
> My point was simply that there are sure to be many different proxy
> configurations, so you can't hope to support all of them out of the box.
> It might well be possible to support all the popular ones, but there
> ought to be a way of customising for strange setups like ours.

My original point was that at the moment you need to configure various
things to identical strings. If you have a proxy which is configured as
"username@proxy:8013", but program "freds-ftp" doesn't support the
"username@" bit, then tough - we havn't broken anything, we just havn't
fixed it either.

We should also standardize the environment variables that are used. Once
again, if the program doesn't support environment variables, tough -
although of course maintainers are encouraged to "fix" the programs :-)

If people could be kind enough to email sample proxy configurations to me
(ones that are supported by some non-customized program), then I'll come up
with a proposed scheme. I'll include some sample code to make it easier for
maintainers to convert a program.

Alternatively, how about doing something like update-menus?  Maintainers
could make "update-lynx", "update-wget" etc programs and then by executing
an overall "update-proxies" program, the various lines in /etc/program.conf
or ~/.program.conf could be changed.

Or do people think the whole thing, or even this entire email, are a waste
of time?  I mean - how many people want this sort of thing?  Or is it just
me with a choice between a dodgy proxy and a dead slow one :-)

To start off, here are some that we need to support (any mistakes?)

http_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
https_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
ftp_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
gopher_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
news_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
newspost_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
newsreply_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
snews_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
snewspost_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
nntp_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
wais_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
finger_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
cso_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port
no_proxy	host.domain.dom, more.debian.org
socks_server	user@some.server.dom:port
auto_proxy	http://user@some.server.dom:port



email: adrian.bridgett@poboxes.com       | Debian Linux - www.debian.org
http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett   | Because bloated, unstable 
PGP key available on public key servers  | operating systems are from MS

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: