1 |
-original message- |
2 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Caching Proxy alternative to Squid? |
3 |
From: Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> |
4 |
Date: 2011-06-04 15:45 |
5 |
|
6 |
Am 04.06.2011 02:54, schrieb Stroller: |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> On 3 June 2011, at 09:59, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
9 |
>>> ... |
10 |
>>> Oookay... something's wrong with the box itself... |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> Even Apache TS failed for the pages where Squid failed o_O |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>>> Time to rebuild the box, then >.< |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> emerge -e everything! |
17 |
>> |
18 |
|
19 |
Far easier to install a box from scratch then swap the IP addresses :) |
20 |
|
21 |
>That doesn't help if some config file is bogus. |
22 |
|
23 |
Well, my config file has passed the check by the Squid people, so it's certainly not that... |
24 |
|
25 |
>However, before doing anything drastic, I'd boot a live-cd or a virtual |
26 |
>machine and check if it works there. Maybe it is a network issue. |
27 |
> |
28 |
>Regards, |
29 |
>Florian Philipp |
30 |
|
31 |
Well, wget works. So it's not *strictly* a network issue. |
32 |
|
33 |
Yet there might be light at the end of the tunnel... A guy in the Netfilter mailing list had indirectly given me a probable solution; he's been having trouble accessing www.apple.com through the proxy (and actually, www.apple.com is also one of the sites I can't access via my proxy box). He managed to make his proxy work by adding a rule to iptables to allow incoming access to port 80. Despite having no web server listening at that port. |
34 |
|
35 |
Doesn't really make sense, I know: why the heck does a target web server need access to *my* port 80, but it worked after all. |
36 |
|
37 |
So, come Monday, I'm going to change the policy for incoming port 80 from DROP to REJECT or ACCEPT, and we'll see if there's going to be joy in mudville :) |
38 |
|
39 |
Rgds, |
40 |
-- |
41 |
Pandu E Poluan |
42 |
~ IT Optimizer ~ |
43 |
|
44 |
Sent from Nokia E72-1 |