-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Amos, we are don't care about experts in the IETF. What is the Squid Team position about SSL bumping and caching? Will Squid be only content filtering proxy or remains caheable? What will be next milestone? 3.5. now less used to cache SSL, only 3.4 series, you ceased to maintain and develop. Moreover, 3.5 still can't bump in NAT transparent interception (for my patform, for example). My point is that I now have to make a decision on choosing a caching proxy for industrial platforms. What should I choose? 3.4? Wait for version 4, or take an active part in the final design 3.5, which is still not suitable for productive operation? Then to find out that it is unable to cache 90% of the traffic? This is key questions and I have no answer yet. WBR, Yuri 24.06.15 22:55, Amos Jeffries пишет: > Though efforts are underway to convince the browser people to fix their > lack of TLS-to-proxy for security on http:// and cacheable DRM-style > crypto for just the payload of messages, etc. Once they accept that the > bogus arguments about http:// being "insecure" disappear. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJViwl/AAoJENNXIZxhPexGp84IAITVXB55JpGcEOVJHSozJgdk YuzZ9Z03zmT7rWdDH7B1203QtrBHLEKt7xjb9Ys8srOifZlvmz/ke3a5pSY8Dnr6 T6D4WYMgcWsNxiQdL1Am55fxqx1/zQD3HW01mWE/s43isc8fN5dYpa2n4pFbEZZE rXw3y4outYka/+7VtyUg8PzSeCCQZeGK/vM3uMguTs8jwA0RMvhbOJeE8oiXVWJe Tsticbv/f/VNfUL7HzeZiFBWBLCAAZu7AjEimvNYNpeulS//KBtl8X7QsBSP+vwc YK4Mg5g68bppOIjtUBOJEF1IIjFC4us7BUyWztdk2hNd3eLTLwPmkRDm1ly/B2s= =3faa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
