On Thu, Mar 28, 2019, at 7:14 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 3/28/19 5:36 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > > On 3/28/19 8:13 AM, creditu@xxxxxx wrote: > >> Is using the http_reply_access deny a viable option if all else fails > >> to correct the issue until we can upgrade? > > > Probably it is not: I am not sure, but based on my quick reading of the > > code and a basic test, http_reply_access does not support the "deny_info > > TCP_RESET" feature at all. Only http_access (and possibly > > adapted_http_access, but I did not check) supports that feature (bugs > > notwithstanding). > > Also see Squid Bug 4585: > https://bugs.squid-cache.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4585 > > Alex. > _______________________________________________ > squid-users mailing list > squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users > Thanks for all the information on this and the bug link. We'll have to see if there is some way we can work around this as compliance policy checks see this as providing a page that is not compliant, at least some of the time. Sometimes the page is not on the bad list because the RST and ACK gets sent back. Thanks again. _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
