Sorry I'm so far behind on email. Will try to catch up soon.
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:05:45 +0200 Sebastian Hahn m...@sebastianhahn.net
wrote:
On Sep 11, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
In any case, Sebastian started a trac
On Sep 11, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
In any case, Sebastian started a trac entry for this one:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/1929
wherein he starts out by listing a reason that we shouldn't fix it.
Please
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 03:33:33 -0400
grarpamp grarp...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, regarding the interaction with HS directory lookups and
excludenodes... i would suggest that specification in excludenodes
should prevent all contact with such node for all reasons. Or just
make another option for how
Well, no rants, but I'm in qualified agreement with Scott [just
this once, heh]... that yes, those of us stuck in 80x25 terminals
and antique text comment databases could use a multiline format.
It the project is concerned about the replace vs. add semantics,
one could add two new
I had planned to upgrade my node from 0.2.2.14-alpha this evening to
0.2.2.15-alpha, but there is an unfortunate and apparently gratuitous, new
restriction upon ExcludeNodes and ExcludeExitNodes that, for the moment
at least, is preventing me from upgrading. I have a rather long list of
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:36:18AM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
I had planned to upgrade my node from 0.2.2.14-alpha this evening to
0.2.2.15-alpha, but there is an unfortunate and apparently gratuitous, new
restriction upon ExcludeNodes and ExcludeExitNodes that, for the moment
at least,
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:39:44 -0400 Roger Dingledine a...@mit.edu
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:36:18AM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
I had planned to upgrade my node from 0.2.2.14-alpha this evening to
0.2.2.15-alpha, but there is an unfortunate and apparently gratuitous, new
On Sep 10, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:39:44 -0400 Roger Dingledine a...@mit.edu
wrote:
As I understand it, we changed no behavior except printing out a warn
for people who had multiple lines, to tell them that they're
expecting
behavior that they're
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:05:09 +0200 Sebastian Hahn m...@sebastianhahn.net
wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:39:44 -0400 Roger Dingledine a...@mit.edu
wrote:
As I understand it, we changed no behavior except printing out a warn
for people
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 03:27:01AM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
Yup, that's the actual behaviour. Good thing we added the warn,
otherwise
it might have gone unnoticed longer.
Wow. This is a scandalously bad situation. Is there any chance
that it will get a high priority for being
On Sep 10, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:05:09 +0200 Sebastian Hahn m...@sebastianhahn.net
wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:39:44 -0400 Roger Dingledine
a...@mit.edu
wrote:
As I understand it, we
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 02:57:52AM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
If what you say is actually the case, then it would seem that a problem
described on this list on many occasions during the last few years may, in
fact, have been due to this horrible limitation. Several of us have
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:40:02 -0400 Roger Dingledine a...@mit.edu
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 03:27:01AM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
Yup, that's the actual behaviour. Good thing we added the warn,
otherwise
it might have gone unnoticed longer.
Wow. This is a scandalously bad
Le Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:39:44 -0400,
Roger Dingledine a...@mit.edu a écrit :
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:36:18AM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
I had planned to upgrade my node from 0.2.2.14-alpha this
evening to 0.2.2.15-alpha, but there is an unfortunate and
apparently gratuitous, new
On 09/10/2010 01:05 AM, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
On Sep 10, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:39:44 -0400 Roger Dingledine a...@mit.edu
wrote:
As I understand it, we changed no behavior except printing out a warn
for people who had multiple lines, to tell them that
Just a heads up that there *has* been torrc validation in arm for quite some
time now. Warnings about this issue (unused entries due to duplicates) have
been given since release 1.2.2 (11/8/09, so bit less than a year now). I
just tested and it has been giving warnings about ExcludeNodes all this
On 9/10/2010 5:29 AM, Scott Bennett wrote:
Even if an editor were available that could handle line lengths
great enough to allow placement of each entire list onto a single line in
torrc,
I'm still in astonishment, wondering how I can actually exclude the
nodes that should be excluded.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 04:29:38AM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
I'm still in astonishment, wondering how I can actually exclude the
nodes that should be excluded. No angry rants from me at this point.
I would recommend a little script which generates the torrc file
for you using a template
On Sep 10, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
In any case, Sebastian started a trac entry for this one:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/1929
wherein he starts out by listing a reason that we shouldn't fix it.
Please add more pros and cons to the trac entry.
it'd be
19 matches
Mail list logo
