Thus spake David Carlson (carlson...@sbcglobal.net):
I am forbidden to access the server yelp.com. Is that because I am a
Tor exit node?
To hell with yelp.
It's not clear if the bans are intentional - if they just believe
that selling user's privacy against their will is their official
Do you have a rational reason why we should allow people to carry the
unencrypted version of a service but not the encrypted one, other than
Well, they could be bad actors even with a good policy!
As I stated above, it's not a good idea to BadExit them, because it
puts more load on the
On 31.01.2011 10:52, morphium wrote:
As I stated above, it's not a good idea to BadExit them, because it
puts more load on the servers, that DO support https i.e. - and makes
them slower.
I disagree Morphium's position mainly for the same reasons Mike and Jake
already pointed out. If the
2011/1/31 Olaf Selke olaf.se...@blutmagie.de:
I disagree Morphium's position mainly for the same reasons Mike and Jake
already pointed out. If the operators really care about their nodes
they'll certainly contact Tor admins. Damaging Tor's reputation in the
public due to exit sniffing imo is
I can not see the Tor project won _anything_ with this decision.
I agree 100%. By all means try to identify those that are trying to
misuse the privilege of running an exit node by other means - but
solely looking at exit policies is not sufficient. All you're stating
to the community is do it
2011/1/31 Mike Perry mikepe...@fscked.org:
So when I said in my earlier post that we don't need exit capacity
that bad, I meant it. Thanks, but no thanks. You are contributing
negative productivity, and none of the non-bitorrenting exits really
will notice your absence in terms of load. Please
On 1/31/2011 6:05 AM, morphium wrote:
2011/1/31 Mike Perrymikepe...@fscked.org:
So when I said in my earlier post that we don't need exit capacity
that bad, I meant it. Thanks, but no thanks. You are contributing
negative productivity, and none of the non-bitorrenting exits really
will notice
morphium wrote:
2011/1/31 Olaf Selke olaf.se...@blutmagie.de:
I disagree Morphium's position mainly for the same reasons Mike and Jake
already pointed out. If the operators really care about their nodes
they'll certainly contact Tor admins. Damaging Tor's reputation in the
public due to exit
Mike Perry wrote:
Thus spake morphium (morph...@morphium.info):
Do you have a rational reason why we should allow people to carry the
unencrypted version of a service but not the encrypted one, other than
Well, they could be bad actors even with a good policy!
As I stated above, it's not a
On 31/01/2011 12:37, Orionjur Tor-admin wrote:
But, in the other side, it seems to me that guys which set up so such
fast nodes are not full lamers. And they probably can read this mailing
list and are able to answer us, am I wrong?
They may or may not read this list. Has anyone taken
Assuming the worse, and disregarding volunteer exit bandwidth without
some proper investigation, doesn't sound like a good approach to me...
Nobody does that, but I think its fair to say that if you want that
somebody can contact you about your node, you publish your contact
details in the
On 31/01/2011 13:11, Jan Weiher wrote:
Assuming the worse, and disregarding volunteer exit bandwidth without
some proper investigation, doesn't sound like a good approach to me...
Nobody does that, but I think its fair to say that if you want that
somebody can contact you about your node,
You make it sound as though running an Exit node is a privilege and that
people who run them somehow owe the Tor project? They're volunteering
bandwidth, for the benefit of the network.
This was not my intention. But I think it should be possible to ask a
volunteer about what he is doing?
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:20:10 +
Geoff Down geoffd...@fastmail.net wrote:
Thank you Juliusz, I appreciate your efforts.
Clearly Tor needs to ship with a working Polipo, so if this is a real
fault would the bundle developers please revert to the version which
was in the Vidalia 0.2.9 bundle,
Hi,
(I've redacted my IP address and relay name and fingerprint here.)
I've set up a bridge relay and it seems to work for a bit and then
stop routing traffic. I'm wondering if I've misconfigured it or
something.
The box running it is behind a NAT and I've port-forwarded to the
Relay Port and
Ah, someone was kind enough to point me to bug 1992:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/1992
thanks, Joe
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall joeh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
(I've redacted my IP address and relay name and fingerprint here.)
I've set up a bridge
I don't think that tor should be dictating what ports must or must not be
open on an exit node. This is after all a voluntary operation.
If people want to send unencrypted data, they will do so with or without these
5 nodes. Shutting them or others down as exits will not make up for users that
On 2011-01-31 15:26, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
I've set up a bridge relay and it seems to work for a bit and then
stop routing traffic. I'm wondering if I've misconfigured it or
something.
Get your 'external' address (http://checkip.dyndns.com/) and start your
bridge with this IP.
Better:
In my opinion, judging a relay based on exit policy is a slippery slope
we don't want to go down. We never claim to make using Tor alone safer
than using the Internet at large. Whether the creep is at Starbucks
sniffing the wifi or running a relay is irrelevant to me. Encouraging
people to use
* Andrew Lewman and...@torproject.org [2011:01:31 08:56 -0500]:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:20:10 +
Geoff Down geoffd...@fastmail.net wrote:
Thank you Juliusz, I appreciate your efforts.
Clearly Tor needs to ship with a working Polipo, so if this is a real
fault would the bundle
I have Konqueror 3.5.8 set up to use Privoxy and Tor. Sometimes I try to bring
up a site that's down, and I get a page generated by Privoxy. But I also get
Privoxy's favicon on some, but not all, pages of a forum I'm on. How come?
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Andrew Lewman and...@torproject.org wrote:
[snip]
If we're going to start censoring Tor exits based on impressions, we
might as well start blocking Tor relays that are rumoured to be run by
national intelligence agencies, criminal organizations, martians, and
- Original Message
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 6:47:37 PM
Subject: Re: Is gatereloaded a Bad Exit?
There are legitimate reasons why tor supports an operator controlled
exit policy, but no real suggestion has
Thus spake Curious Kid (letsshareinformat...@yahoo.com):
- Original Message
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 6:47:37 PM
Subject: Re: Is gatereloaded a Bad Exit?
There are legitimate reasons why tor supports an
Thus spake t...@lists.grepular.com (t...@lists.grepular.com):
On 31/01/2011 13:11, Jan Weiher wrote:
Assuming the worse, and disregarding volunteer exit bandwidth without
some proper investigation, doesn't sound like a good approach to me...
Nobody does that, but I think its fair to
On 01/02/2011 00:00, Mike Perry wrote:
I don't think you can make that assumption. Maybe they just didn't want
their email address to be public for spam bots to harvest. Maybe they're
just used to not publishing their email address unless they really have
to. Safest course of action: Figure
Thus spake t...@lists.grepular.com (t...@lists.grepular.com):
But don't worry, at some point Mr. Blow et al will realize that their
packet captures stopped grabbing passwords and are only seeing
encrypted middle and guard node traffic. They'll probably show up
then, proclaiming their
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:56 -0500, Andrew Lewman and...@torproject.org
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:20:10 +
Geoff Down geoffd...@fastmail.net wrote:
Thank you Juliusz, I appreciate your efforts.
Clearly Tor needs to ship with a working Polipo, so if this is a real
fault would the
These people should not be Tor nodes.
Mike, I respectfully disagree. Anyone willing to allow traffic should be
node. The tor project homepage makes no 'rules' when it
comes to running a node. If you're willing to allow any traffic you're a
suitable candidate, apparently in the opinion of the
Furthermore I would like to add that if I ran an exit I *might* just not
put contact info on it. I don't see the issue unless it's rejecting
traffic and I'm screwing up the network. Even if it was I'd figure it out
eventually. I wouldn't want you weirdos emailing me anyway ;)
--
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:08 PM, mi nt m...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote:
These people should not be Tor nodes.
Mike, I respectfully disagree. Anyone willing to allow traffic should be
node. The tor project homepage makes no 'rules' when it
comes to running a node. If you're willing to allow any
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011, Christopher A. Lindsey wrote:
Could it be that these nodes have set these policies to reduce the
possibility of being approached because of illegal activity passing
through them? It could be they believe that they're helping with the
project and limiting their exposure as
On 1/25/2011 1:25 PM, Jerzy Łogiewa wrote:
Hello
Is it possible to have Torbutton activate Tor only on specified tabs and not
others? It would make Tor much more useful.
So far this is not possible, no. There is an ugly, but workable,
solution in using Firefox's profile manager. By creating
On 1/31/2011 7:58 PM, Geoff Down wrote:
The difference is that the PPC bundle with vidalia 0.2.9 was built on a
10.3.9 ppc mac. However, the 10.3.9 machine died a smelly, melty
death during a build a few months ago.
Is nobody freecycling one? http://www.freecycle.org/group/US/
GD
I may be
I just tried to sign up for the tor weather email service. Clicking
on the subscribe button after entering the information requested in various
places earlier on the page yielded,
Forbidden (403)
CSRF verification failed. Request aborted.
You are seeing this message because this HTTPS
35 matches
Mail list logo
