Hi Andrew!
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:22:00 -0400, Andrew Lewman and...@torproject.org wrote:
Sorry my ignorance but why caching proxy is better than built-in
Firefox cache?
Enabling torbutton disables firefox cache. I didn't test non-tor
firefox caching.
Thinking about this some more,
bao song wrote:
I looked at Andrew's statistics.
With Polipo, if one keeps re-loading the same page over and over, it
takes a bit longer the first time, but then all subsequent loads are
retrieved from cache, so there's no download time. Effectively (rounding
the tiny number of milliseconds
On 08/21/2009 03:54 AM, bao song wrote:
What page would I wish to look at over and over but not download?
Lots of people leave the same page up in a tab in their browser for very
long times, like baidu, gmail, facebook, bbc.co.uk, cnn,com, meebo, etc.
And if I don't want the page on my hard
On 08/21/2009 03:29 PM, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
Hi Andrew!
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:49:28 -0400, Andrew Lewman and...@torproject.org
wrote:
My testing shows that a caching proxy helps speed up the user experience
with Tor.
Sorry my ignorance but why caching proxy is better than
On 08/21/2009 03:31 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
Sorry my ignorance but why caching proxy is better than built-in
Firefox cache?
Enabling torbutton disables firefox cache. I didn't test non-tor
firefox caching.
Thinking about this some more, torbutton doesn't disable Firefox memory
caching.
On 08/21/2009 02:06 PM, Scott Bennett wrote:
Well, I suppose torbutton doesn't count as a proxy, but wouldn't it
fail the test you propose above? Granted, torbutton filters at a content
level rather than at a URL/host+domainname level, whereas privoxy is active
on both levels, but
On 08/20/2009 12:59 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
Hmmm...I'm not too sure that I should be blamed for this, but
nevertheless...
Not blaming you, just honoring you as the instigator. ;)
To get back to your question of why we need a proxy between a browser
and tor, though, I would like to
Andrew Lewman schrieb:
I tested a few scenarios:
The access to hidden service is important too (in my opinion). I have
good experience using privoxy with:
forwarded-connect-retries 3
Access to hidden services with socks5 in Firefox gives sometimes a
timeout first. After 1-2 retries, the page
Hmmm...I'm not too sure that I should be blamed for this, but
nevertheless...
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:26:44 -0400 Andrew Lewman and...@torproject.org
wrote:
A while ago there was a thread that devolved into why does Tor still
ship ancient privoxy? and why are you shipping polipo with the
A while ago there was a thread that devolved into why does Tor still
ship ancient privoxy? and why are you shipping polipo with the Tor
Browser Bundle instead of current privoxy? For those interested, the
thread is here, http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Jul-2009/msg00063.html.
Scott had a good
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Andrew Lewman and...@torproject.orgwrote:
[snip]
The summary of results:
1) Native polipo is 54.5% faster on average than native privoxy. This
could be due to polipo's caching, http 1.1 pipelining, and it can serve
bits as fast as they come in from the
11 matches
Mail list logo
