On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 18:04, Jim Pingle <li...@pingle.org> wrote: > On 6/5/2011 7:10 AM, Odhiambo Washington wrote: > > So here is my patch, which also contains a few changes required in > squid-3. > > There's your problem, squid 3 is largely untested and should not be > trusted. :-) If you want it to work, use the squid 2.x package. > > Every so often someone else comes along and says something different > should be on that line, so at this point I'm not quite sure who is > exactly right. It would appear that the units portion is needed at least > though. > > http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,32923.msg191044.html > > http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,33616.msg174311.html > > Hi Jim,
I have been running squid 2.x in production for some years now. Alongside it I also run squid 3 (3.2.x) and I am pretty sure that the mentioned directive isn't right. There's not much difference in syntax between 3.1.9 and 3.2.x. A simple `squid -k parse` would tell the maintainer of that squid.inc script that the line does not make sense. "deny" verb is used with Access Controls, not directives/params that are static like reply_body_max_size. Just looking at "reply_body_max_size 0 deny all" tells me that something is not quite right. I think whoever submitted the change did not test it. Again as I said, I stand corrected but I believe I am right on this one. I am just starting to use pfSense, so I don't know much about it. Suppose I created squid.inc.local, would that be sucked in when the system launches? -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I can't hear you -- I'm using the scrambler. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
<<image001.png>>
