Re: Proxy Servers

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jan 94-present
• Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Re Dan on implementation "
• Previous message: Dave Hollander: "Virtual Pages"
• Maybe in reply to: Lou Montulli: "Re: Proxy Servers"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 11:07:44 --100
Message-id: <94Feb16.174146pst.2735@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Proxy Servers
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1072

> Yes.  I think that a simple and common case will be that
> anything within a certain single domain will be local access.
> Generally the firewall or the weak link is at a domain boundary,
> to all intents and purposes. One possibility is to force ALL traffic
> outide a domain to use a server, which would need two env variables

> 	WWW_FIREWALL_GATEWAY	http://gateway.acme.com/
> 	WWW_FIREWALL_DOMAIN	acme.com

> of couse a good default would be to guess that the domain was the 
> domain of the gateway server, which would just mean one env variable.
> Another would be to do it separately by URL scheme.

> 	WWW_http_GATEWAY	http://gateway.acme.com/
> 	WWW_http_DIRECT_DOMAIN	acme.com

> Any thoughts on this?  Kev like to propose something and the code
> as a function of any other comments?  I agree we want to keep it
> simple.

> Tim Berners-Lee

Well, I'm sympathetic to keeping it simple, but I think we want some
finer grain control with more information -- even a table of addresses
and protocols  might be necessary. How about a configuration file
instead?