Re: [Fwd: Socks support in CVS]

[Larry Jones]

Mark D. Baushke writes:
> 
> I am given to understand that v4 and v5 really do not interoperate as
> such, so I guess it makes sense that users could configure to use one or
> the other.

It depends on what you mean by interoperate.  As I recall, most SOCKS 5
servers can also support SOCKS 4 clients and the SOCKS 5 client library
supports connecting to SOCKS 4 servers.  When I did SOCKS support, I
had configure look for the SOCKS 4 client library only if it couldn't
find the SOCKS 5 client library.

> Just to be clear, it would just be the client that needs to worry about
> getting thru the firewall, right? If so, I do not see a big problem with
> adding some kind of socks support in theory. 

I don't think we want to get into the business of supporting every proxy
server known to man.  My impression is that SOCKS was never very popular
(look at how often it's been asked for here) and is steadily declining
in popularity.  I see no value in adding it to the standard source.

-Larry Jones

It COULD'VE happened by accident! -- Calvin