FC1 Proxy Servers

[Ed K.]

Have a look at this page:

http://www.privoxy.org/man-page/privoxy-man-page.html

I think you might want to use them both.

I've used squid (only) for years and LOVE it!.

ed

p.s. rant: I wish the yum repositories would properly set their expires headers. 
that way the files are stored for the proper amount of time in the proxy cache.
have a look at my fedora.us repository mirror:
http://www.edebris.com/fedora.us/mirror/

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Chalonec Roger wrote:

> Well I was not sure if these two nomenclature names were actually proxy
> servers.  Are there relative advantages and disadvantages between the
> two other than anti-virus?
>
>
> Thanks Alexander
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fedora-list-bounces at redhat.com
> [mailto:fedora-list-bounces at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Alexander Dalloz
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 11:13 AM
> To: For users of Fedora Core releases
> Subject: Re: FC1 Proxy Servers
>
>
> Am Di, den 08.06.2004 schrieb Chalonec Roger um 17:05:
>
>> I am looking to implement proxy services on FC1 and I have noted that
>> there may be two.  One called Privoxy and another called Squid.  Does
>> anyone have experience with these or a better proxy server that run on
>
>> FC1?  I am currently using Microsoft ISA as a proxy server on Intel.
>
>> Roger
>
> Your question is a bit unspecific. Both proxies are working great, while
> squid is certainly is known by more people than privoxy. I think privoxy
> has a better antiv-virus integration capability, if that counts.
>
> Alexander
>
>
> --
> Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG key 1024D/ED695653 1999-07-13
> Fedora GNU/Linux Core 2 (Tettnang) on Athlon CPU kernel 2.6.5-1.358
> Serendipity 17:11:09 up 6 days, 17:29, load average: 0.43, 0.60, 0.45
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>

Security on the internet is impossible without strong, open, 
and unhindered encryption.