Re: [squid-users] Win.x and Windows 2000 different behaviour

Thanks Colin for your response. I guess, I am now back to square one. I
know what both of you are saying (and Jerry) about bypassing proxy for local
sites (and this would be a desired policy). However, after checking, double
checking and triple checking I can only conclude this: IE acts differently on
Win.x platform from the one on Y2K. I don't know why but it does...

Back to the "drawing board." :-(

On Tuesday 11 December 2001 12:27 am, Colin Campbell wrote:
=> Hi,
=>
=> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, --==[bMan]==-- wrote:
=>
=> > One thing you are right about is that the semantics of configuration
 file => > comments are confusing. The following syntax:
=> >
=> > always_direct allow
=> >
=> > I read just like that: always direct. No second guessing. Always
 direct => > means to me "always direct". Obviously, as I quickly begin to
 learn it, => > there are other meanings to the word "direct"... :-)
=>
=> Yes "direct" means "direct". It is an instruction to squid to not use a
=> parent cache. Have a look in the mailing list archives. You'll find many
=> people who've been "confused" by this. If memory serves there was even one
=> today. Squid CANNOT tell a browser to go direct to a web site. If the
=> browser has contacted squid, it's already too late.
=>
=> If you don't believe me, here's an excerpt from a guru's email:
=>
=> From: Henrik Nordstrom (hno@marasystems.com)
=> Date: Mon Dec 10 2001 - 03:11:20 MST
=>
=> | always_direct in squid.conf has no relation to the discussion. Only
=> | tells Squid how Squid may connect to the servers, and is only of
=> | relevance when you have peer caches/proxies (cache_peer directive).
=>
=> If your browser goes direct to a web server it was not because squid told
=> it to - squid cannot do that.
=>
=> Colin

-- 
Bolek,
URL: http://www.bolek.com
e-mail: bman@bolek.com
ICQ: 4086197, Address: 402905326