[ ijbswa-Feature Requests-2519815 ] fallback for forward?

Feature Requests item #2519815, was opened at 2009-01-19 05:45
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by nodje
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=361118&aid=2519815&group_id=11118

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Configuration
Group: None
Status: Closed
Resolution: Later
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Assigned to: Fabian Keil (fabiankeil)
Summary: fallback for forward?

Initial Comment:
How about a fallback option for forward-options?
What i mean is, is it possible to tell privoxy to use a socks proxy, but if that proxy isn't available it should try anotherone or direct access to the internet?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: nodje (nodje)
Date: 2013-03-08 02:00

Message:
this would be very useful.

When you use Privoxy as a LAN proxy to forward to a tunnel, you loose the
ability to fallback on DIRECT connection.

This is the behaviour you typically expect from a PAC file that tunnels
only some website and falls back on DIRECT when the tunnel is not working.
Highly flexible! especially in a country like China where it's difficult to
keep the tunnel up and running, and especially for casual user that
don't/can't master a proxy switch in their system.

When you use an identical PAC file to configure a LAN to tunnel through SSH
for a white list of domains, through Privoxy you loose the DIRECT fallback
ability.

That means every single user of the LAN has to manually switch to direct
connection when the tunnel goes off...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Fabian Keil (fabiankeil)
Date: 2013-03-07 04:28

Message:
The TODO list is available at:
http://ijbswa.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ijbswa/current/TODO?&view=markup

The status is that it's not in 3.0.20 beta and will not be in 3.0.21
stable.

AFAIK nobody is working on it and thus it's also unlikely to be in 3.0.22.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: nodje (nodje)
Date: 2013-03-06 20:32

Message:
I can't find the #19 item in the Developer TODOs.
Could you add a link or the ID of the TODO?
What is status of this now? Is it included in 3.0.20.beta ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Fabian Keil (fabiankeil)
Date: 2012-11-23 11:52

Message:
Closing the request as it's on the TODO list as #19.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Fabian Keil (fabiankeil)
Date: 2009-02-01 03:34

Message:
This has been suggested in private mail before
and I think it's a good idea.

Doing it without having users enable this feature
by accident requires a bit of thinking, though,
and that's why it hasn't been done yet.

I'll try to look into it once the next stable
release is out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=361118&aid=2519815&group_id=11118

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester  
Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the  
endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to 
tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev