On Thu, Dec 11, 1997 at 12:15:11PM -0500, Charles Briscoe-Smith wrote: > Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]: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://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port https_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port ftp_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port gopher_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port news_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port newspost_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port newsreply_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port snews_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port snewspost_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port snewsreply_proxyhttp://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port nntp_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port wais_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port finger_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port cso_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port no_proxy host.domain.dom, more.debian.org socks_server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:port auto_proxy http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:port Cheers Adrian email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
