large set of command-line options is user-unfriendly

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. n/a

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

The bevy of command-line options are an important feature in ratproxy. 
However they also bring a degree of complexity that the README and --help
message both implicitly acknowledge.  It would be nice if the profiles
listed in either document could be incorporated into RatProxy itself.  See
below for a more clear example.

I recognize the point made in the documentation that RatProxy requires a
certain bit of awareness by default, but I think it's important not to
conflate a person's technical savvy with their ability to juggle all of
these testing options at a time.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
- ratproxy version 1.51-beta by <lcamtuf@google.com>
- Fedora Core release 4 (Stentz)


Please provide any additional information below.

Example settings suitable for most tests:
  1) Low verbosity  : -v <outdir> -w <outfile> -d <domain> -lfscm
  2) High verbosity : -v <outdir> -w <outfile> -d <domain> -lextifscgjm
  3) Active testing : -v <outdir> -w <outfile> -d <domain> -XClfscm

Instead of just printing these in the usage message, why not also
incorporate them into the app itself, and maybe even allow users to further
customize the run-time settings using these testing levels as a baseline?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by putn...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 11:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This is definitely an enhancement request but it doesn't appear I have the 
means to
set that myself.

Original comment by putn...@gmail.com on 3 Sep 2008 at 11:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Yup, I fully agree; it's actually one of the features I have planned for the 
next
version. 

On one hand, I wanted to avoid a situation where the default behavior has some
options enabled, some disabled, and hence some short command-line options enable
features, while others disable them (something that is pretty annoying in some 
other
programs, particularly as defaults change between versions). On the other, 
specifying
15 options to get a good baseline is annoying. Since I already plan adding
configuration files, providing customizable profiles should be reasonably easy.

Original comment by lcam...@gmail.com on 14 Sep 2008 at 10:25

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement
• Removed labels: Type-Defect