Replacing Privoxy with built-in http proxy. #948

Closed
xbb123 opened this Issue Dec 15, 2016 · 11 comments

Projects

None yet

6 participants

@xbb123
xbb123 commented Dec 15, 2016

Hi all,
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:

  1. Privoxy is a open-source and well supported project. It has gone through so many versions and is considered very stable;
  2. Implementing a http proxy of our own is very likely to introduce bugs and security flaws (ie, code execution) and bring reduced features(ie. keep-alive);
  3. Being a leading project in web proxy enables Privoxy to receive security audits more frequently and as a result, more secure;
  4. Implementing our own http proxy will the this project harder to maintain in the future.
    If I am missing anything, please correct me.
    Thanks!
@wongsyrone
Contributor

Totally agree with you.

@Noisyfox Noisyfox closed this Dec 16, 2016
@celeron533
Contributor

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.

@xbb123
xbb123 commented Dec 16, 2016

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.

@xbb123
xbb123 commented Dec 16, 2016

BTW, why this issue is closed already? I think it would be better for a project to open to any suggestions.

@xbb123
xbb123 commented Dec 16, 2016

Sorry, I didn't see the changes have been reverted. I apologize for my comments earlier.

@Remonli
Remonli commented Dec 18, 2016

@wongsyrone Now Privoxy open a random port instead of previous 8123 for HTTP proxy ? Is it possible to rollback to Privoxy default port 8123 ?

@breakwa11
Contributor

@Remonli 我认为这是无理的要求

@celeron533
Contributor
celeron533 commented Dec 18, 2016 edited

极少数情况下会随机到正准备使用的端口,比如8080,在启动SS后再想启动一个需要监听8080的程序就会悲剧。但基本上只要重启SSwindows,重新掷色子应该就没大问题了

@Remonli 我认为这是无理的要求

@Remonli
Remonli commented Dec 18, 2016

如无必要,勿增实体。没有充分的理由,就没必要去改变软件原有的行为。

@wongsyrone
Contributor

可以自己改代码啊

@breakwa11
Contributor

@Remonli 之所以说这是无理,是因为你本来就不应该直接使用8123这个端口,而如果不直接使用,那你管它开什么端口呢?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment