On 6/01/2016 10:10 p.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
>> On 2015-12-31 00:01, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
>>> Hello Squid members and developers!
>>>
>>> First of all, I wish you a Happy New Year 2016!
>>>
>>> The current Host header forgery policy effectively prevents a cache
>>> poisoning. But also, I
>On 2015-12-31 00:01, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
>> Hello Squid members and developers!
>>
>> First of all, I wish you a Happy New Year 2016!
>>
>> The current Host header forgery policy effectively prevents a cache
>> poisoning. But also, I noticed, it deletes verified earlier cached
>> object. Is
On 2015-12-31 13:31, Amos Jeffries wrote:
On 2015-12-31 00:01, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
Hello Squid members and developers!
First of all, I wish you a Happy New Year 2016!
The current Host header forgery policy effectively prevents a cache
poisoning. But also, I noticed, it deletes verified
On 2015-12-31 00:01, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
Hello Squid members and developers!
First of all, I wish you a Happy New Year 2016!
The current Host header forgery policy effectively prevents a cache
poisoning. But also, I noticed, it deletes verified earlier cached
object. Is it possible to
Hello Squid members and developers!
First of all, I wish you a Happy New Year 2016!
The current Host header forgery policy effectively prevents a cache
poisoning. But also, I noticed, it deletes verified earlier cached
object. Is it possible to implement more careful algorithm as an
option? For
On 15/07/2014 6:23 a.m., Edwin Marqe wrote:
Hi Eliezer,
I understand that, but this is pretty much the point of my e-mail. In
my company we don't work with servers installed physically here,
instead, we rent servers to a company. We use 2 nameservers for our
clients, and the IT company uses
Hi all,
After an upgrade of squid3 to version 3.3.8-1ubuntu6, I got the
unpleasant surprise of what is called the Host header forgery
policy.
I've read the documentation of this part, and although I understand
the motivation of its implementation, I honestly see not very
practical implementing
Hey There,
I do not know your setup but if you run:
dig domain.com
and the results are different from what the client tries to request it
seems to be a Host Header Forgery like..
In the case of google, it seems like google instead of pointing to one
of your servers points to a local server but
Hi Eliezer,
I understand that, but this is pretty much the point of my e-mail. In
my company we don't work with servers installed physically here,
instead, we rent servers to a company. We use 2 nameservers for our
clients, and the IT company uses others and additionally they don't
allow to
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 19:23 +0100, Edwin Marqe wrote:
Hi Eliezer,
I understand that, but this is pretty much the point of my e-mail. In
my company we don't work with servers installed physically here,
instead, we rent servers to a company. We use 2 nameservers for our
clients, and the IT
On 07/14/2014 09:23 PM, Edwin Marqe wrote:
Hi Eliezer,
I understand that, but this is pretty much the point of my e-mail. In
my company we don't work with servers installed physically here,
instead, we rent servers to a company. We use 2 nameservers for our
clients, and the IT company uses
11 matches
Mail list logo
