On 1/17/06, Christoph Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Usual complaint... please reply to the original poster. /I/ wasn't the one > having a question. (This is really a bad habit that I haven't seen to > occur that frequently on any other mailing list.) > > On Tuesday 17 January 2006 20:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm surpised squid even recovered from trying to do an acl for every > > blacklist entry. > > I'm pretty sure she rather used something like: > > acl porn-urls dstdomain "/etc/squid/access/porn.urls"
Exactly -- different ACL types have different levels of efficiency, for example, an IP-address "dst" ACL would be faster than any redirector, if more difficult to maintain. > Still that might be not the optimal solution for Squid. Depends on what your primary goal is with filtering. My personal and professional opinion is that urlblacklist.com is not usable in any "production" deployment. I followed their process to submit a removal request for a three-letter domain (to remove it from the "porn" category) over a year ago, with no response, and no update nor rejection (not by email, not on the rejects page). In evaluating blacklists, I checked all of my employer's domains against urlblacklist and also all of the top commercial filter products, and of all the filters, only urlblacklist came up with an incorrect categorization (none of the domains host porn). Kevin Kadow
