[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

RE: FC1 Proxy Servers

Have a look at this page:


I think you might want to use them both.

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


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:

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 redhat com
[mailto:fedora-list-bounces 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.


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 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 redhat com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

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

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]