> Drop it : Oh boy, I can already tell this will be fun... Unfortunately, I can't drop it. I've been told to investigate this by my boss because we have a coporate liability due to these boxes having unrestricted net access. If it can't be done, that's fine, but I need some technical details as to why this specific scheme will not work. My boss won't like "drop it" as an answer. :-) > http://squidwiki.kinkie.it/SquidFaq/InterceptionProxy I'm confused by this link. You tell me to "drop it" and point me to a page that has two paragraphs about why it *shouldn't* be done, then spends the next three pages describing all the ways it can be done? > Try to *think* what you are saying, how in any sense would that global > parent have any carry-thru info, about who was in front of the > intercepting SQUID ? Sorry, I'm just trying to gather some information here about what can be done. What "carry-thru" info is needed? Why does it matter who is in front of the intercepting cache? If the parent cache uses authentication, only authed machines will be allowed to connect? How is this any different than a typical squid peer/parent arrangement?
