Re: [squid-users] Advice needed on transparent proxy problem

Kamesh Patel wrote:
>
> Hello Marc,
>
> <snip>
> > The idea of forced blocking of sites doesn't necessarily imply
> >installing SQUID as transparent proxy.
> >I feel the issues are unrelated, fw. policies could block standard
> >web access without SQUID (proxy) using other methodologies.
> <snip>
>
> I feel the issue of blocking and transparent proxying are also unrelated to
> my problem as the blocking part comes as a by-product of the proxying, if
> wanted.
>
> The problem that i am having is people do not want to use the proxy and the
> by-product as it restricts them, they don't seem to understand that websites
> will be unblocked if they request them with legitimate reasons. But i do not

  A possible web access policy amongst many, though not immediately
related to
  the technical stuff.

> want to get involved in the politics of my users (inevitably this will
> happen, but at least not for the time being!) as this project was initiated
> to keep our users "safe". Well as safe as safe can be in an IT environment,
> lol!
>
> <snip>
> > Transp. proxying is sort of a hack at the IP level, and can sometimes
> >break subtle issues in ip networking between the client and the
> >webserver.
> <snip>
>
> Because of the problem of a small number users not wanting to accept the
> proxy/blocking/cache it has to be forced upon them all using the means of a
> transparent proxy! Hence my implementation.

 Not necessarily, by means of trans. proxying,
 if a firewall is being used, outgoing access
 to port 80 could be blocked (e.g.).

 
>
> It has been suggested to me that a https accelerator will help me fix my
> problem, do you know if this would be the case?

  I think that term is unrelated to this debate, so I don't
  think so.

  M.
Received on Mon Oct 21 2002 - 07:43:13 MDT