On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:01:56AM +0100, Geoff Down wrote:
> Is there an echo in here?
> Is there an echo in here?
like postings of the previous writers go to:
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
echo-echo - YES :)
Is there an echo in here?
Is there an echo in here?
On 4 Sep 2008, at 23:46, Kyle Williams wrote:
I've also noticed that while using the "incognito" feature, I was able
to see my history from a regular browser window.
Example:
If I were to visit "www.microsoft.com" in a regular window, opened
I've also noticed that while using the "incognito" feature, I was able to
see my history from a regular browser window.
Example:
If I were to visit "www.microsoft.com" in a regular window, opened a new
"incognito" window, then type in "www" in the URL bar, it shows that I've
visited "www.microsoft
Just curious to how private is their private browsing feature. Don't
feel much secure to me for plugins (perhaps cookies are isolated though)
as it is not really meant for use with Tor...
> Hi all,
>
> I've been playing around with Google's new web browser and Tor. I
> thought it might be good to
Hi all,
I've been playing around with Google's new web browser and Tor. I thought
it might be good to share my findings with everyone.
After reading Google's privacy policy[1], I for one would not want to use
this on a regular basis, if at all.
The first bug I tried was an old one I found with F
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 08:25:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 1.5K bytes in
37 lines about:
: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
: Supposedly, one of the exit node operators is going to try opening
: 465/587 where he hasn't done so before.
I've done it. So far, no complaints.
--
Andrew
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roger Dingledine wrote:
I know this has been discussed before, but I thought I'd bring it up
again. The following rules are in the default exit policy and I can't
see any reason why they would be:
reject *:465
reject *:58
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Supposedly, one of the exit node operators is going to try opening
465/587 where he hasn't done so before.
I'm all for opening 465/587 by default, but I also understand the
concern of exit operators that there may be a significant number of
(perhaps
Roger Dingledine([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:36:47AM -0400:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 04:32:29PM +0100, Dawney Smith wrote:
> > Dawney Smith wrote:
> >
> > >> I know this has been discussed before, but I thought I'd bring it up
> > >> again. The following rules are in the default ex
Scríobh John Brooks:
But it is worth noting that ISPs often are very unfriendly to spam. I've
received several abuse notifications from my dedi's ISP due to tor exit
traffic, all of it because of outgoing spam using insecure webmail
services (where my node's IP shows up in the headers as origin
10 matches
Mail list logo
