Hello :) Alex Rousskov wrote > Believe it or not, there are still many Squid use cases where bumping is > unnecessary. This includes, but is not limited to, HTTPS proxying cases > with peek/splice/terminate rules and environments where Squid possesses > the certificate issued by CAs trusted by clients. There are also IETF > attempts to standardize transmission of encrypted but proxy-cachable > content. > > I agree that Squid user base will shrink if nobody can bump 3rd party > traffic, but that reduction alone will not kill Squid. > > Alex. I would definitely disagree. Rich countries citizens always forget the fact that high quality corporate leased lines and dedicated bandwidth *do* cost so much that letting users *hide* their unwanted traffic behind the *4th amendment* HTTPS is unaffordable. Naturally, HTTPS standards were designed to hide traffic. I don't mind users hiding traffic content, let users burn in hell with it, let them rejoice with Dante! What I do mind is hiding full URLs and/or MIME types. Give me any low cost solution that would reliably expose those and hide anything else you want. Otherwise, it is useless to start a business first place! I mean, even with appliances like those from Sophos or others that claim to have full control over traffic, it still remains an ugly guess work combined with an admin nightmare who then must block each and every category of unwanted traffic! Unless the protocol design changes to expose full URLs and/or MIME types, nothing will replace Squid Bumping. That being said, we are headed to the vortex by 2018.05.01. Let's drown together, while we yell and curse at Google! MK -- Sent from: http://squid-web-proxy-cache.1019090.n4.nabble.com/Squid-Users-f1019091.html _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
