> >> On 29.04.09 04:58, nyoman karna wrote:
> >> > you probably may use PAC (as Amos suggested)
> >> > but IMO it ruin the basic idea of using transparent proxy
> >> > (which is user does not need to put any setting in their browser)
> > On Mon, 04 May 2009, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> >> the whole idea of intercepting proxy (also called transparent) is sick.
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Gavin McCullagh <gavin.mccullagh_at_gcd.ie> wrote:
> > Would you care to substantiate that in a bit more detail?
On 04.05.09 16:41, Jeff Sadowski wrote:
> If your blocking content that would violate rights, maybe; if you are
> doing it to speed things up or blocking sites that have no place in
> the current facility I can not see how it can be claimed as sick.
What is sick is the fact you must break someone's connection and insert
something there, instead of letting him know about a proxy.
Yes, applications that do not support proxy autodetection are problematic
themselves. But that imho doesn't change the fact it's sick.
OTOH, wpad and javascript autodconfiguration is not much better, but it is
still better
-- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [email protected] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. He who laughs last thinks slowest.Received on Wed May 06 2009 - 08:31:27 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed May 06 2009 - 12:00:02 MDT