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 > complained > on numerous occasions that adding a node to one list or the other and sending > SIGHUP to tor (or restarting it) failed to prevent that node from being used > in the manner that we had expressly excluded.
That bug still does exist (also): https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/1090 but that bug is mainly in edge cases, e.g. where Tor wants to contact a hidden service directory node because that's the place that knows how to rendezvous with the hidden service, but that directory node has been listed in excludenodes. Some users expect one behavior, others expect a different behavior. It's on my todo list to put in some sort of patch for it by 0.2.2.x stable. --Roger *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to [email protected] with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
