Timo Boettcher wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Philipp Tölke wrote: > > > Did you look at the -D option for ssh? > > > > But I don't know how to make it operate as an http proxy. Perhaps > > there is a way but unknown to me. I don't want to run my local > > firefox under socksify. I am sure that would work but then I couldn't > > easily switch it on and off as needed. Therefore having an actual > > external http proxy works better as far as I can tell. > > What about running privoxy over an ssh -D socks-proxy?
If you were going to use privoxy then while it would be possible to use -D to access it but it is just as easy to just do normal tcp port forwarding with ssh -L 8888:127.0.0.1:8888 and connect to it too. Then the -D socks option isn't needed at all. Since the -L is the much more simpler than -D it wins that comparison. The -D option is only interesting if it can solve the problem without any other tools installed. I had looked at privoxy as a normal http proxy and it says: Privoxy is a web proxy with advanced filtering capabilities for protecting privacy, filtering web page content, managing cookies, controlling access, and removing ads, banners, pop-ups and other obnoxious Internet junk. Privoxy has a very flexible configuration and can be customized to suit individual needs and tastes. Privoxy has application for both stand-alone systems and multi-user networks. . Privoxy is based on Internet Junkbuster (tm). I didn't want any filtering. It looks to me like privoxy is targetting filtering. That doesn't come for free. It adds a lot of complication that I didn't need. Plus privoxy is much larger in size. $ apt-cache show tinyproxy | grep ^Size: Size: 87474 $ apt-cache show privoxy | grep Size: Size: 607478 As you can see tinyproxy is about 1/7th the size. So it wins this comparison so far. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
