Re: protocol support for intercepting proxies

I'm talking about intercepting proxies, which squid is not.

We do get requests from clients around these sorts of issues.

Many clients (esp SMB) don't have any tech support staff, or their staff 
are not very knowledgeable.

It's one thing for us to say they should have good staff, it's another 
for them to find and pay them.

We get many support requests unrelated to WinGate, regarding DNS setup, 
DHCP setup, proxy auto config etc etc.

Enough support requests to consider it a problem.

For PAC to work properly, you need everything lined up, DNS/DHCP, 
something to serve the .pac file etc etc.

When it works sure it works.  When it doesn't there are a bunch of 
places to start looking, and that's where the support cost comes in.

Regards

Adrien


Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>
>   
>> None of this addresses the fact that
>>
>> a) intercepting proxies exist, and exist currently unsupported by the spec
>> b) customers want to be able to *enforce* HTTP policy on their corporate 
>> networks,
>> c) customers don't like to have to pay sys admins to do things they can 
>> get around with technology.
>> d) the more links you put in a chain, the more chance one of them will 
>> break.
>>     
>
> Explain how you can get around these issues with technology without having
> at least a skeletal technical services staff to handle issues?
>
> My last client has a 1400 desktop environment running off a single Squid
> server, using central-managed browser configuration + proxy.pac for the
> actual service configuration. Works fine for their requirement.
> They've had no complaints since I updated their Squid environment (since
> not touching an environment for 5 years does result in degraded performance;
> they had no system administrator for their squid stuff which "just worked"
> for said 5 years..)
>
>
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
>   

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com

Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 03:55:12 UTC