On 18/05/2013 5:53 a.m., Helmut Hullen wrote:
> Hallo, csn233,
>
> Du meintest am 18.05.13:
>
>> SG has numerous problems which caused it not to do what it's supposed
>> to, including that "emergency" mode thing. Here are some things to
>> consider:
>> 1) a BIG blacklist is overhyped - when I had a good look at our
>> requirements, there was only a small percentage of those websites we
>> actually wanted to block, the rest were either squatting websites or
>> non-existent, or not relevant. Squid could blacklist (eg ACL DENY)
>> those websites natively with a minimum of fuss.
> May be - it does a good job even with these unnecessary entries.
If the list is that badly out of date it will also be *missing* a great
deal of entries.
>
>> 2) SG has not been updated for 4 or 5 years, if that's your latest
>> version, you are still out of date.
> I can't see a big need for updating. Software really doesn't need
> changes ("updates") every month or so.
For regular software yes. But security software which has set itself out
as enumerating badness/goodness for a control method needs constant updates.
>
>> More to the point, you will not find much help now. or anyone to fix
>> it even if you could prove it's a bug.
> "That depends!" - I know many colleagues who use "squidguard" since
> years; the program doesn't need much help.
During which time a lot of things have progressed. Squid has gained a lt
of ACL types, better regex handling, better memory management, and an
external ACL helpers interface (which most installations of SG should
really be using).
Which brings me back to my question of what SG was being used for. If it
is something which the current Squid are capable of doing without SG
then you maybe can gain better traffic performance simply by removing SG
from the software chain. Like csn233 found it may be worth it.
Amos
Received on Sat May 18 2013 - 02:58:52 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat May 18 2013 - 12:00:17 MDT