On 9/16/21 2:52 PM, David Touzeau wrote: > It is true that it would be possible to use an external_acl in the > http_reply_access. > > Do you think that adding it in this position I would be able to use > squid's resolution results ? Yes, bugs notwithstanding, an external ACL evaluated at http_reply_access time should have access to %<a. HTH, Alex. > Le 16/09/2021 à 19:43, Alex Rousskov a écrit : >> On 9/16/21 1:30 PM, David Touzeau wrote: >> >>> I'm turning to create a DNS resolution dev and I'm giving up looking >>> retreive this information through Squid. >> Please note that if you do your own DNS resolution, then Squid DNS >> resolution results will probably mismatch your results in some cases. >> There have been many complaints about associated problems from folks >> that went this route... >> >> I am not sure what you are trying to do with that a %<a-based external >> ACL in Squid, so it is difficult to narrow down the solution search >> scope, but Squid does support slow ACLs in certain directives used when >> talking to origin servers or peers (after built-in DNS resolution and >> destination selection) so perhaps there is a way to do what you want >> without Squid modifications. >> >> If there is not, it would not be difficult to add a post-resolution >> directive that supports slow ACLs IMO, but, again, that requires more >> knowledge of the use case -- there are several places where such a >> directive can be added. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Alex. >> >> >> >>> Le 16/09/2021 à 19:13, Amos Jeffries a écrit : >>>> On 17/09/21 2:42 am, David Touzeau wrote: >>>>> Thanks Amos for quick answer. >>>>> >>>>> Can you take away any hope of a workaround with Squid ? >>>>> >>>>> This makes me plan having to develop a function that has to perform >>>>> DNS resolution inside the helper with the performance consequences >>>>> that this will impose. >>>>> >>>> I would be looking at a design where a helper classifies requests and >>>> using that later on when the server is known to match up the IP vs the >>>> classification. I'm struggling to think of a flow that works >>>> efficiently though. >>>> >>>> Amos >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> squid-users mailing list >>>> squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users >>> _______________________________________________ >>> squid-users mailing list >>> squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> squid-users mailing list >> squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users > _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
