My understanding was that dansguardian was a context/content based filter versus a url and domain blocker/redirector like squidguard. I may have "crossed some wires" though as I have been researching a number of related topics as of late.
Jesse --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > dansguardian has the same functionality as > squidguard, and claims it > does it faster, why do you want to run both? > > Harrison > > On 21 Mar 2003 at 6:00, Jesse Strycker wrote: > > > > > Since there's been a lot of proxy combination > talk > > lately, I started wondering about some proxy > chaining > > of my own. I looked around, but couldn't find > records > > of anyone doing the following. > > > > I am considering the feasibility of chaining > > squidguard, dansguardian, and adzapper. I am also > > seeing if i could add a virus scanner to that > chain, > > but that's for another post sometime down the > road. > > > > I may be thinking about this all wrong, but the > chain > > i'm considering is as follows: > > > > client -> squidguard -> dansguardian -> adzapper > -> > > net > > > > The reasoning is that if the client shouldn't be > > viewing the site in the first place, why even send > the > > request to the others. If it passes squidguard, > then > > Dan's can check for content. If it is still okay, > then > > adzapper could handle any associated ads. > > > > Does this sounds reasonable? Any horrible flaws > i'm > > overlooking. Any suggestions how to best link > them? > > Thank you for your time and consideration. > > > > Jesse > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, > live on your desktop! > > http://platinum.yahoo.com > > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
