I'm not itching for more auth options at the moment, personally. From
my perspective, Oops needs work in some other areas...
Performance--a well tuned Squid is considerably faster on big hardware,
contrary to popular opinion. On small hardware Oops wins, IMHO, but
because it's more memory efficient not because it runs faster and memory
usage is usually more important on smaller hardware (like a small
gateway/router/firewall type box with multiple services running in the
small business environment). So a faster Oops that can really take
advantage of multiple disks and lots of RAM would be good.
Database-backed redirector (ala SquidGuard)--Maybe I'm just not familiar
enough with the existing redirection options in Oops, but it seems like
creating a content filtering system with Oops is not currently possible.
One of my pet projects right now is to create a free porn blocking
system for Squid+SquidGuard, and I'd like to support more proxy
platforms if possible. But a list of 500,000 domains (a guess, we
haven't actually compiled the lists and edited them yet) is not going to
work very well in a flat file list.
Well, you /did/ ask. ;-)
Tamas SZERB wrote:
> as you know guys, squid has a simple authenticator interface to spawn an
> external program to dedice if the user is allowed or not.
>
> maybe (yes, MAYBE) somebody needs that feature in oops. what are your
> opinions about that? do we need it, or if we would like implement it, hos
> do you plan it? i'd like to get some mindstorming here at first, meanwhile
> i'll look for the squid implementation for that. any comments are
> welcomed, please don't hesitate. :)
--
Joe Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Affordable Web Caching Proxy Appliances
http://www.swelltech.com
=====================================================================
If you would like to unsubscribe from this list send message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe oops-eng" in message body.
Archive is accessible on http://www.paco.net/oops/
