From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.70.92.137 with SMTP id cm9mr10606003pdb.4.1413206588794;
        Mon, 13 Oct 2014 06:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.70.98 with SMTP id l2mr4782obu.28.1413206588516; Mon, 13
 Oct 2014 06:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.glorb.com!uq10no9860733igb.0!news-out.google.com!rp1ni27119igb.0!nntp.google.com!uq10no9860722igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 06:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <543B8060.8020108@spam.spam>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=2602:306:3784:5b10:1c7e:4be5:2d0:8dbb;
 posting-account=yiWntAoAAAC1KqC_shmxJYv07B9l6LNU
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2602:306:3784:5b10:1c7e:4be5:2d0:8dbb
References: <e80ebf02-c45f-45f9-89c8-9eef97133c6d@googlegroups.com>
 <m12nmt$tg2$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <346d6ddb-a712-4bf4-abdb-665d3b79c16d@googlegroups.com>
 <ef2cfde3-d72f-4cae-a472-d3e6d96cd4de@googlegroups.com>
 <543B8060.8020108@spam.spam>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5517805d-f9f7-4c08-84af-2f4f2141e33c@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Gnoga Logo and marketing info, Critique please
From: David Botton <david@botton.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:23:08 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:22417
Date: 2014-10-13T06:23:08-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> Doesn't seem to help much with my proxy.

What do you mean by "your proxy"?

> And reading the Wikipedia article on web sockets isn't very encouraging, too: 
> "If unencrypted WebSocket traffic flows through an explicit or a transparent 
> proxy server on its way to the WebSocket server, then, whether or not the 
> proxy server behaves as it should, the connection is almost certainly bound to 
> fail today."

I have not had issues with proxies so far, has worked well.  This could be old info.

David Botton