RE: [squid-users] Zero sized reply and other recent access problems

I must say that I totally agree with your comment but I'd like to hear from
some of the developers to better understand the whole picture as far as code
checking. We do have some of the same issues you are experiencing and we
are using transparent proxying as well. Latley it is becoming more and more
of an admin nightmare responding to users who cannot access certain sites
while on our network when they can access them just fine from their home.

>From: H Matik <h@matik.com.br>
>To: squid-users@squid-cache.org
>Subject: [squid-users] Zero sized reply and other recent access problems
>Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 18:08:44 -0300
>
>Recently all of us are having problems with squid not serving certain
>pages/objects anymore.
>
>We do know that squid most probably does detect correct or incorrect html
>codes and tells it via it's error messages.
>
>
>But I am not so sure if this should be a squid task.
>
>
>Squid IMO should cache and serve what it gets from the server.
>
>The code check should be done by the browser - means incorrect code is a
>browser problem or a web server problem so it should be adviced by the
>browser not by anything in the middle.
>
>Even if the page code is buggy the page could contain objects to be cached
>and
>that is what squid should do.
>
>I say so because who use squid is an ISP or a system admin of any kind of
>network. So it should not turn into be this man's problem if somebody is
>coding his server's html pages incorrectly. He with his squid only serves
>his
>customers or his people on his network.
>
>IMO this strict html code checking is complicating network support to end
>customers what already was or is not so easy sometimes.
>
>We here do use transparent squid on lots of sites and soon someone
>complains
>about this kind of problem we rewrite our fwd rules so that it does not
>goes
>through squid anymore.
>
>Even if we know that the remote site owner has no interest in somebody not
>capable to access his site we do not have the time to talk to him. Indeed
>it
>is not our problem and we are not a html coding school teaching how to
>correct errors. So here we simply desist and pass by squid for such kind of
>sites.
>
>IMO I think it might be better for squid not checking code.
>
>Custumers say: "Without your cache I can access the site, with your cache
>not.
>I do not want to know about and if you do not resolve this problem for me I
>do not use you service anymore but another where it works."
>
>So even if "I" loose first my customer second they do not use squid
>anymore. I
>believe it could be considered to think about this.
>
>I like to add that we here are using squid since 97/98 and what I wrote
>here
>is not in any kind a meant as offending critic to the developers but a
>point
>to think about. So what you think about this?
>
>Hans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>_______________________________________________________
>Infomatik
>(18)8112.7007
>http://info.matik.com.br
>Mensagens não assinadas com GPG não são minhas.
>Messages without GPG signature are not from me.
>_______________________________________________________
><< attach3 >>

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Received on Sun Mar 06 2005 - 08:42:02 MST