Subject: Re: Squid vs. WWWOffle vs. ...?
To: Benjamin Walkenhorst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Eric Fox <email@example.com>
Date: 10/12/2004 11:03:48
Squid is easy to use as a caching proxy and can pretty much be used "out
of the box." If you want to do user authentication or ads filtering or
such, it takes a bit more effort to configure, but you should be able to
get it up and running within a few minutes.
I've used WWWOffle, but not as a caching proxy. When I build systems that
reside behind an authenticating proxy, WWWOffle is one of the first
packages I install because it can be easily configured to pass my
username/password to the up-stream proxy when making requests. I then set
http_proxy and ftp_proxy environment variables to localhost for building
further packages. This can probably be done with Squid too, I just found
that, for me, WWWOffle worked easier for this solution.
/\---/\ Eric J Fox
/ o o \ Small Business Computer Support
\.\ /./ in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Benjamin Walkenhorst wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I think about setting up a caching proxy on my local network.
> I know of two free proxies available for BSD, Squid and WWWOffle.
> Are there any other solutions I should consider?
> What are the pros and cons of Squid and WWWOffle? Squid, I hear, is hard
> to configure.
> Any remarks?
> Does anyone use one of these solutions and can tell about good or bad
> It would also be nice - but not neccessary - to tell the proxy for
> individual pages/servers how long to keep items in cache (so news pages
> are refreshed more often). Or to tell the proxy to refresh certain sites
> in cache automatically in given intervals and server them entirely from
> OTOH I don't want to spend endless hours setting this thing up - I
> mainly want a web cache.
> Thanks in advance,