Re: [PATCH] Addition Of http-proxy-port-exceptions

Stipe Tolj <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.mobile.kannel.devel
Organization The Kannel Group
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi Jonathan,

Jonathan Houser wrote:
> 
>      This patch adds an 'http-proxy-port-exceptions' config file option 
> to Kannel.  The purpose of this is to allow you to skip using your proxy 
> server for certain types of traffic.  I added it specifically for SSL. 
> So an example config file might look like:
> 
> http-proxy-host = localhost
> http-proxy-port = 80
> http-proxy-port-exceptions = 443
> 
>      I realize that there is already an 'http-proxy-exceptions' in 
> Kannel that does the same trick.  However I'd rather not have to 
> maintain a big list of hostnames I have to add to each time a subscriber 
> finds some new SSL site.  A list of ports is not so bad, especially 
> since almost everyone will use 443 for SSL.  To not break compatability, 
> I also added 'E' options to test_http.c and test_xmlrpc.c (where 'e' is 
> exceptions and the new 'E' is port_exceptions).  I have tested this 
> patch for trying to access Hotmail (which didn't work before), and it 
> works fine.  Thanks.

ok, first of all thanks for submitting the patch. I'm +0 on this, in the current 
version.

The reason is: As this is an add-on to the existing 'http-proxy-exceptions' 
config directive, which contains hostnames that are avoided to be proxied, and 
actually both, the old and your new config directive yield to a binary 
decission: yes, proxy, or no, do not proxy -- how about using regex expressions 
here in a single config directive?

I'm not quite sure about how, but I suppose this should be fairly possible, in 
the regex notation that '<scheme>://<hostname>:<port>' identifies a request target.

So you may obviosly "block" any proxying via specifying a regex expression that 
starts with "https" and leaves the hostname and port open. Others could 
explicetly block proxying ot specific ports or hostnames, etc.

IMO, this regex config directive would be actually more powerfull in terms of 
"reducing" the necessary steps to add some specific rules for proxying?!

Stipe

mailto:stolj_{at}_wapme.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Vogelsanger Weg 80
40470 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany

phone: +49.211.74845.0
fax: +49.211.74845.299

mailto:info_{at}_wapme-systems.de
http://www.wapme-systems.de/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.