On 10/01/2010 08:51 PM, Mike Perry wrote: > Intuition also tells me that tor:// and tors:// urls will be easier to > use, understand, and remember by the general public.. Can you give > some examples/reasons why just using these schemes actually prevents > us from doing this scheme layering idea for other protocols in the > future (when it is supported)? In otherwords, why can't we just do both? > >
There is no reason why not. As long as there are no obvious risks with a user clicking on a public tor:// URL and initiating the proxy layer. My understanding of the implementation is that all traffic occurring in the host browser after a tor:// request is initiated would be re-routed unless the 'tor' schema handler launched a separate host browser. This may not be the intention of the user and may conflict with accessing IP whitelisted services (FTP hosts, etc...) I haven't tried the new version yet, is there a descriptive popup that explains what's happening when a user clicks a tor:// or tors:// ? --Dave *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to [email protected] with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
