On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:11:55AM +, my.green.lant...@googlemail.com wrote
2.3K bytes in 61 lines about:
: So if Tor is using usual development practice then why does the
: stable version manual
: (http://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en) have
: *WarnUnsafeSocks in it if there has
and...@torproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:11:55AM +, my.green.lant...@googlemail.com wrote
2.3K bytes in 61 lines about:
: So if Tor is using usual development practice then why does the
: stable version manual
: (http://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en) have
:
Roger Dingledine wrote:
This is interesting. I tried it.. and both seem to work for me on my
0.2.2.10-alpha on win2k.
But.. when I tried - WarnUnsafeSocks 0
I get..
Nov 25 17:50:03.015 [Warning] Failed to parse/validate config: Unknown
option 'WarnUnsafeSocks'. Failing.
Nov 25
Matthew wrote:
I think I am correct to say that StrictExitNodes has been negated in
favour of StrictNodes.
However, when I use StrictExitNodes 1 I have no problems.
When I use StrictNodes 1 and have viable ExitNodes then Vidalia gives
the error: Vidalia detected that the Tor software exited
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 05:52:36PM +, Anon Mus wrote:
Matthew wrote:
I think I am correct to say that StrictExitNodes has been negated in
favour of StrictNodes.
However, when I use StrictExitNodes 1 I have no problems.
When I use StrictNodes 1 and have viable ExitNodes then Vidalia
I think I am correct to say that StrictExitNodes has been negated in
favour of StrictNodes.
However, when I use StrictExitNodes 1 I have no problems.
When I use StrictNodes 1 and have viable ExitNodes then Vidalia gives the
error: Vidalia detected that the Tor software exited unexpectedly.
6 matches
Mail list logo