First of all, I would like to thank all of you for your contributions.
In Pre-Release version, Privoxy was replaced by a built-in implementation of http proxy, I would like to express my views on this issue:
Totally agree with you.
And if it is possible, Privoxy could be replaced to other proxy servers by the ServiceProvider if they would like to have some http cache to give quicker response and/or save the bandwidth.
I don't think you can deploy a caching system using Privoxy since it's running on clients' PC. The best way to cache is simply allowing browsers to follow http headers.
BTW, why this issue is closed already? I think it would be better for a project to open to any suggestions.
Sorry, I didn't see the changes have been reverted. I apologize for my comments earlier.
@wongsyrone Now Privoxy open a random port instead of previous 8123 for HTTP proxy ? Is it possible to rollback to Privoxy default port 8123 ?