Re: Proxy Servers (and SOCKS)

Ian Dunkin <imd1707@ggr.co.uk>

Mail folder: WWW Talk Jan 94-present
Next message: David Parker: "Re: Idea for new form input type"
Previous message: Kevin Altis: "Re: Proxy Servers (and SOCKS)"
Maybe in reply to: Kevin Altis: "Re: Proxy Servers (and SOCKS)"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 23:04:16 --100
Message-id: <Pine.3.89.9402252107.A16477-0100000@uk0x04>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: imd1707@ggr.co.uk
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Ian Dunkin <imd1707@ggr.co.uk>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Proxy Servers (and SOCKS)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1543

On Fri, 25 Feb 1994, Kevin Altis wrote:

> Most sites that require the use of a proxy would not need anything more
> than the ability to specify a proxy for a particular protocol, plus a
> domain or domains to not proxy. I need specific examples if this doesn't
> work for your site so we can understand your needs.

Kevin,  Thanks for your reply (and the new mechanism!)

If it allows for domains (plural: we use internal servers across several
different domains) they yes, it would fit _my_ site's needs. 

> Actually, the proxy scheme is intended to be a complete replacement for
> SOCKS in the case of Web clients (reliance on HTTP), while SOCKS can
> continue to work for telnet and special ftp clients. There are numerous
> reasons for the SOCKS replacement, but I don't want to drag all of the
> reasons out on this list.

I'd be genuinely interested in them.  You see, for me an advantage of
using SOCKS for all services is that it does give a unity of access
control and configuration.  Adding further mechanisms for particular
protocols adds overheads in this respect and requires additional software
on a firewall host, where one wants as little as possible.  Let people
choose SOCKS if they want.

Mind you, they can: After quick experiment, I found that if I SOCKSize a
CERN httpd, and direct the debug Win-Mosaic's proxy requests at that, I
can use my existing SOCKS transport well enough.  (Nasty, eh?  :-)

    I.

(Tentative question: Have you thought of the `Firewalls' mailing list for
canvassing further, non-WWW opinion?)