filtergroup-user assignment
Opened this issue · 4 comments
GoogleCodeExporter commented
I just thought about the filtergroup-user assignment in dg and now I have a few
questions about what we can except in mind.
What about the limit of 100 filtergroups? Does it still exist like in dg?
Does mind keep the concept of the filtergrouplist file, where filtergroup-user
assignment is static done? So for every change the service must reload the
configuration. Maybe a system, where changes can be added online, brings
advantages. I also thought about connectivity to directory services to map the
filter groups to groups of the directory service maybe done by an “LDAP
helper”?
Original issue reported on code.google.com by t...@gmx.ch on 9 Apr 2011 at 4:02
GoogleCodeExporter commented
I also remember that a user cannot be in two groups at the same time. (It just
uses the configuration of the last user-group assignment and don't consider the
other ones) So descent is not possible.
Original comment by t...@gmx.ch on 9 Apr 2011 at 4:11
GoogleCodeExporter commented
Current filtering groups behavior are exactly the same than Dansguardian.
We agree this way of working is a mess. I have thought about change it several
times.
We will include the following improvements before releasing MinD RC1 version:
* No more limits on filtering groups/users assignments.
* All groups configuration will be performed in a single file.
* Stops to double-loading in memory lists belonging to groups.
* Users/groups recognition via IP address or custom http header.
* Filter groups configuration will be reloaded by performing a remote request
to the filter.
Regarding directory services connectivity are a milestone of Blaster versions.
Anyway it can be performed with a chained proxy.
Original comment by mind....@gmail.com on 9 Apr 2011 at 6:28
- Changed state: Accepted
GoogleCodeExporter commented
Original comment by mind....@gmail.com on 10 Apr 2011 at 2:42
- Added labels: Priority-High
- Removed labels: Priority-Medium
GoogleCodeExporter commented
Original comment by mind....@gmail.com on 23 Apr 2011 at 7:42
- Added labels: Type-Enhancement, Priority-Medium
- Removed labels: Type-Defect, Priority-High