Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:58:10 +0900 From: "Adrian Chadd" <adrian@freebsd.org> To: dave@syix.com Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portaudit and portsnap acting silly. Message-ID: <d763ac660712292158gf0e5001x76d5febf676c06d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <00f001c84991$1eb25b70$26714dd1@syix.com> References: <006f01c848bd$cbcda550$26714dd1@syix.com> <00f001c84991$1eb25b70$26714dd1@syix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29/12/2007, Dave Overton <dave@syix.com> wrote: > Fixed. > > For reference, it was squid, happily caching the data for me. > > Makes one wonder why the portsnap and portaudit servers or clients aren't > http compliant if they use http protocols... Especially since the author of > portsnap suggests a cache server for speed.... Grab a wireshark snapshot showing the HTTP request/reply, both from the client -> squid and squid -> server and I'll tell you whats busted. Adrian (Squid committer) -- Adrian Chadd - adrian@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d763ac660712292158gf0e5001x76d5febf676c06d>