On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 12:53:03PM +0100, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> I get a feeling going CURLOPT_PROXY_HOSTNAME is a bit more complicated
> than anyone will ever enjoy. I lean towards plaily making the proxy type
> SOCKS5_HOSTNAME supported. (And yes, SOCKS5 is then going back to sending
> IP address by default.)

I agree, I'd also do it like that.

BTW, I don't think client-side DNS resolving is needed for HTTP proxies -
nobody has ever done this! I'm not even sure it makes sense, because e.g. a
caching HTTP proxy will have a much harder time figuring out which website
a request goes to if the server uses virtual hosting. I have a feeling that
current HTTP proxies do not expect the hostname in the GET line to differ
from that of the "Host:" header.

Cheers,

  Richard

-- 
  __   _
  |_) /|  Richard Atterer     |  GnuPG key: 888354F7
  | \/¯|  http://atterer.net  |  08A9 7B7D 3D13 3EF2 3D25  D157 79E6 F6DC 8883 54F7
  ¯ '` ¯