On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 08:09:30AM -0500, dman wrote:
> It's just a perl script that also includes lots of URL patterns for ad
> banners. In squid.conf, specify it as a redirector_program.
... and much more. Not only does the author maintain a very complete list of
patterns, you can also spec you
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 01:40:06AM -0400, David Jackson wrote:
| > On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 08:02:49AM -0700, Walter Reed wrote:
| >
| >> Another reason to run squid: adzap. It's amazing how much it speeds up
| >> browsing on my IDSL line...
| >
| > What's the Debian name for adzap?
|
| My quess
> On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 08:02:49AM -0700, Walter Reed wrote:
>
>> Another reason to run squid: adzap. It's amazing how much it speeds up
>> browsing on my IDSL line...
>
> What's the Debian name for adzap?
>
> --
> Baloo
My quess is adzap is part of the squid package
David
--
--
To UN
On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 10:31:41PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 08:02:49AM -0700, Walter Reed wrote:
>
> > Another reason to run squid: adzap. It's amazing how much it speeds up
> > browsing
> > on my IDSL line...
>
> What's the Debian name for adzap?
http://www.google.c
On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 08:02:49AM -0700, Walter Reed wrote:
> Another reason to run squid: adzap. It's amazing how much it speeds up
> browsing
> on my IDSL line...
What's the Debian name for adzap?
--
Baloo
pgpa5nWXw8xjk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 09:24:46PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Curiosity to see if its worth keeping squid duing a transparent proxy
> now that our broadband came up (we were stuffed on dialup for four days
> when the person in charge of getting everybody's share of rent and bill
> money forgot th
On Sunday 26 May 2002 12:58, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Will I get enough winnage over the cable modem to make it worth while
> now that the broadband's back?
Depends on the servers you want to access. I "only" have ADSL with
maximum 90KB/s download, and yet the average speed seeme to be
somewhere b
On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 11:44:51AM +0100, Peter Whysall wrote:
> My instinct is that it probably is worth it because your web browser will
> initially ask the proxy, which is presumably either local, or attached via
> LAN, rather than the remote server, which is over 56K.
Will I get enough winnag
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 05:24, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:03:26PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> > I'd activate cache, flush it then run an automated pull of a slew of
> > sites tried against both a proxied and unproxied session. You can get a
> > list of sites (if you want
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:03:26PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> I'd activate cache, flush it then run an automated pull of a slew of
> sites tried against both a proxied and unproxied session. You can get a
> list of sites (if you want to mirror your own behavior) from the squid
> cache logs t
on Wed, May 22, 2002, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Is there a good way to benchmark performance on web surfing with squid
> doing caching and without on a small household network?
What are you hoping to compare?
The cache s
11 matches
Mail list logo
