True, I should've said they overlap, instead. Also dansguardian doesn't have acls, so there can't be varying levels of blocking like squidguard. You can specify users or ips that aren't filtered, but it's either all or nothing. I do like the content filtering, though, and it catches most of the sites that you'd like blocked that squidguard misses. The author plans on adding acls, but is working on another problem right now.
Harrison On 21 Mar 2003 at 13:50, James A. Pattie wrote: > > DansGuardian can do url blocking, mime-type blocking, file extension > blocking etc. It just doesn't do redirection like squidGuard. > > Jesse Strycker wrote: > > 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 > > > - -- > James A. Pattie > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Linux -- SysAdmin / Programmer > Xperience, Inc. > http://www.pcxperience.com/ > http://www.xperienceinc.com/ > > GPG Key Available at http://www.pcxperience.com/gpgkeys/james.html > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQE+e20HtUXjwPIRLVERArIyAKCi18eXdryn+j3Xsk3bw4Yb54COuQCfbsKX > aLCUnhWRLR2+ifuBGwygp3E= > =qCSV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. >
