Hi,
apologies, that's on me, I had uploaded the wrong version of a file. It
should be okay now, can you recheck?
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 21:18, Miha Miha wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> When I try to verify the authenticity of squid-6.7.tar.gz file I get:
>
> gpg: Signature made Sun 04 Feb 2024
Hi there,
When I try to verify the authenticity of squid-6.7.tar.gz file I get:
gpg: Signature made Sun 04 Feb 2024 08:22:04 PM EET using RSA key ID F48F8EAB
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
I don't see a key with ID F48F8EAB in the public chain in pgp.asc file
Could you please double
> >> On 10/01/24 12:18, Miha Miha wrote:
> >>> Release note of latest Squid 6.6 says: "...not deemed ready for
> >>> production use..." For comparison Squid 5.1 was 'ready'. When v6 is
> >>> expected to be ready for prod systems?
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:37 PM Amos Jeffries wrote:
> >>
Hi there
On 06/02/2024 16:24, Antony Stone wrote:
On Tuesday 06 February 2024 at 16:16:24, Rob van der Putten wrote:
On 05/02/2024 18:32, Antony Stone wrote:
I believe ping (ICMP) timings are irrelevant. The client (squid in this
case) does a DNS lookup for the hostname's A and
On 2024-02-06 10:16, Rob van der Putten wrote:
On 05/02/2024 18:32, Antony Stone wrote:
On Monday 05 February 2024 at 17:32:51, Rob van der Putten wrote:
On 05/02/2024 17:16, Dieter Bloms wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, Rob van der Putten wrote:
After upgrading Squid from 3 to 5 the percentage of
On Tuesday 06 February 2024 at 16:16:24, Rob van der Putten wrote:
> Hi there
>
> On 05/02/2024 18:32, Antony Stone wrote:
> >
> > I believe ping (ICMP) timings are irrelevant. The client (squid in this
> > case) does a DNS lookup for the hostname's A and records,
>
> A before . Bind
Hi there
On 05/02/2024 18:32, Antony Stone wrote:
On Monday 05 February 2024 at 17:32:51, Rob van der Putten wrote:
On 05/02/2024 17:16, Dieter Bloms wrote:
On Mon, Feb 05, Rob van der Putten wrote:
After upgrading Squid from 3 to 5 the percentage of IPv6 reduced from
61% to less then
