Re: [squid-users] Netscape to Squid conversion Issues

I do have a webserver hosting the pac file. I set the default site to
be that webserver. I do not get it to work. I followed this manual:
http://wiki.squid-cache.org/SquidFaq/ReverseProxy

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Dean Weimer <dweimer_at_orscheln.com> wrote:
> You might try configuring squid as a reverse proxy for a web server actually hosting your proxy.pac file, I have never tried this, but I think it would work.
>
> Thanks,
> Dean Weimer
> Network Administrator
> Orscheln Management Co
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Welker [mailto:jan.welker_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 8:04 AM
> To: squid-users_at_squid-cache.org
> Subject: [squid-users] Netscape to Squid conversion Issues
>
> Here's a situation we're facing and I'm curious if anyone has some
> insight into how we might approach this problem.
>
> We currently have approximately pcs, a very large portion of which
> are configured in one of two ways.
>
> A. Netscape browsers with manual proxy servers set up for http and
> https as proxy.host.net:8080
> B. Netscape browsers with automatic proxy configuration with URL setup
> as proxy.host.net:8080 (note they're the same).
>
> This setup runs fine when pointing to the netscape admin-server/proxy
> server configuration.
>
> The problem I'm having is when I point one of the "automatic"
> configured pcs to one of the boxes running SQUID. At startup, the user
> receives a message saying the automatic configuration has failed and
> on the squid server I see the following access.log entry.
>
> 10.49.0.145 - - [30/Apr/2001:16:28:40 -0400] "GET / HTTP/0.0" 400 1094 NONE:NONE
>
> From the docs, it's clear that I need to provide a proxy.pac file
> telling the users what their automatic configuration should be. The
> problem I'm having is how to provide this info and provide
> filtering/caching all from the same port?
>
> Having all the users change their configuration to point to another
> port or host isn't an attractive option (120+ sites, 6000 pcs likely
> to be touched). If I must do that, I'd much prefer to cut over to
> transparent proxying so we don't face this problem again in the future
> and it's trivial for the end users to reconfigure.
>
> Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Jan
>
Received on Tue Dec 09 2008 - 15:40:16 MST