Re: Running a stable exit node without interference (Was blutmagie quad core upgrade)

2010-05-08 Thread andrew
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 01:57:02PM +0300, maill...@piirakka.com wrote 1.2K bytes in 44 lines about: : Okay, that cleared things a lot. I Guess that authorities treats that : ip-range as an ISP. : : Last week I was in contact with my ISP and it is possible to have your : companys etc. information

opening up (exit policy) a bit ...

2010-05-08 Thread John Case
Let's say you run a tor relay with no exit policy: reject *:* And then later you alter that exit policy a bit: accept *:80,reject *:* My understanding is that this system will continue to be used as a non-exit relay, but will then also be used as an exit. That is, it's not going to be

Re: Polipo question

2010-05-08 Thread Juliusz Chroboczek
does anyone know if there is a config file option to turn off all caching in Polipo? If you look at the Polipo manual, there's an index. If you look at the index, there's an entry for uncachable. If you follow the entry, you'll find the config variable uncachableFile. --jch

Re: opening up (exit policy) a bit ...

2010-05-08 Thread Dyno Tor
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:03 AM, John Case c...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote: Let's say you run a tor relay with no exit policy: reject *:* And then later you alter that exit policy a bit: accept *:80,reject *:* My understanding is that this system will continue to be used as a non-exit relay,

RE: Polipo question

2010-05-08 Thread downie -
From: j...@pps.jussieu.fr To: or-talk@freehaven.net Subject: Re: Polipo question Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 18:08:22 +0200 does anyone know if there is a config file option to turn off all caching in Polipo? If you look at the Polipo manual, there's an index. If you look at the

Re: opening up (exit policy) a bit ...

2010-05-08 Thread Sebastian Hahn
On May 8, 2010, at 7:54 PM, Dyno Tor wrote: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:03 AM, John Case c...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote: Let's say you run a tor relay with no exit policy: reject *:* And then later you alter that exit policy a bit: accept *:80,reject *:* My understanding is that this system

Re: opening up (exit policy) a bit ...

2010-05-08 Thread Dyno Tor
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Sebastian Hahn m...@sebastianhahn.net wrote: On May 8, 2010, at 7:54 PM, Dyno Tor wrote: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:03 AM, John Case c...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote: Let's say you run a tor relay with no exit policy: reject *:* And then later you alter that exit

Re: opening up (exit policy) a bit ...

2010-05-08 Thread John Case
On Sat, 8 May 2010, Dyno Tor wrote: Let's say you run a tor relay with no exit policy: reject *:* And then later you alter that exit policy a bit: accept *:80,reject *:* (snip) What do you mean, not an exit node at all? As long as the Tor process receives a HUP signal or is restarted

Re: opening up (exit policy) a bit ...

2010-05-08 Thread Dyno Tor
No, you misread the original - I am saying that I first have this exit policy: reject *:* and then I replace that exit policy with: accept *:80,reject *:* So I am indeed an exit... Yup, I did misread it. Sorry! Back to lurking now... :)

Re: opening up (exit policy) a bit ...

2010-05-08 Thread Mike Perry
Thus spake John Case (c...@sdf.lonestar.org): So I am indeed an exit... This is totally incorrect. Tor uses exit nodes in the middle and possibly even guard position, depending on flags and general scarcity of guards. Ok, that was the answer to my first question. My follow-up questions

Re: opening up (exit policy) a bit ...

2010-05-08 Thread Mike Perry
Thus spake Mike Perry (mikepe...@fscked.org): This means that your non-Exit flagged node will be weighted like an Exit flagged node for the exit position, but will be weighted as if you were a non-scarce middle or guard node for the other positions. In sort, you would in theory get slightly

Re: opening up (exit policy) a bit ...

2010-05-08 Thread John Case
On Sat, 8 May 2010, Mike Perry wrote: This means that your non-Exit flagged node will be weighted like an Exit flagged node for the exit position, but will be weighted as if you were a non-scarce middle or guard node for the other positions. In sort, you would in theory get slightly more

Re: opening up (exit policy) a bit ...

2010-05-08 Thread Mike Perry
Thus spake John Case (c...@sdf.lonestar.org): On Sat, 8 May 2010, Mike Perry wrote: This means that your non-Exit flagged node will be weighted like an Exit flagged node for the exit position, but will be weighted as if you were a non-scarce middle or guard node for the other positions.

Re: opening up (exit policy) a bit ...

2010-05-08 Thread Scott Bennett
On Sat, 8 May 2010 22:49:26 + (UTC) John Case c...@sdf.lonestar.org On Sat, 8 May 2010, Mike Perry wrote: This means that your non-Exit flagged node will be weighted like an Exit flagged node for the exit position, but will be weighted as if you were a non-scarce middle or guard node

Re: opening up (exit policy) a bit ...

2010-05-08 Thread Tim Wilde
On 5/8/2010 6:49 PM, John Case wrote: I suppose I could see the ratio of actual connections by simply running 'netstat', yes ? If my orport and dirport are 9001/9030, and I am allowing port 80 exit, then all netstat connections showing port 80 are exit connections, so I could (roughly)