Can you give me any figures? Regards,
Onno At 01:26 PM 3/26/00 +1200, C. Falconer wrote: >I disagree with your disagreement -grin- > >Plain ACLs are too slow especially on a large and/or busy cache. > >---------- >From: Onno[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, 26 March 2000 12:58 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Cc: 'debian-user@lists.debian.org' >Subject: Re: Squid ACLs does not work > >At 11:35 AM 3/24/00 +1200, C. Falconer wrote: >[snip] >>Squid ACLs are messy and not really intended for filtering based on URLs - >>rather they seem to be for controlling what machines can access your squid >>cache, and which domains your clients get direct (uncached) access to. > >I do not agree with you: > >acl proxyallow url_regex "/etc/squid.allow" >acl proxydeny url_regex "/etc/squid.deny" > >and > >http_access allow proxyallow allowed_hosts >http_access deny proxydeny >http_access allow allowed_hosts >http_access deny all > >In my squid file do the job just fine! > >The allow and deny files are all the tools you need. >The keywords are flat ASCII and row based and give >all the flexibility you need. I don't see the need >for any extra software. > >Regards, > >Onno > > > >-- >Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null > > > >
