Re: why polipo?

2010-02-20 Thread zzzjethro666
How does one, or rather I, do this switch on my Mac 10.5.2 ppc? Thanks and should I? -Original Message- From: Andrew Lewman and...@torproject.org To: or-talk@freehaven.net Sent: Sat, Feb 20, 2010 8:32 am Subject: Re: why polipo? On 02/15/2010 12:09 PM, Michael Gomboc wrote

Re: why polipo?

2010-02-20 Thread Michael Gomboc
Thank you Andrew for the nice explication! 2010/2/19 Andrew Lewman and...@torproject.org On 02/15/2010 12:09 PM, Michael Gomboc wrote: Why is polipo used and no longer privoxy? The first question is, why a http proxy at all? The answer is, because Firefox SOCKS layer has hard-coded

Re: why polipo?

2010-02-20 Thread Flamsmark
On 19 February 2010 20:32, Andrew Lewman and...@torproject.org wrote: Once Firefox fixes bug 280661, we don't need a http proxy at all. However, given the current pace of progress on 280661, we may switch to Chrome before the fix occurs. If the switch to Chrome was made, I assume that

Re: why polipo?

2010-02-20 Thread Andrew Lewman
On 02/20/2010 03:36 AM, zzzjethro...@email2me.net wrote: How does one, or rather I, do this switch on my Mac 10.5.2 ppc? Thanks and should I? Should you switch? I cannot answer that. How to switch? I can answer that at a high-level. Install privoxy from http://www.privoxy.org/, reconfigure

Re: why polipo?

2010-02-20 Thread Marco Bonetti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Lewman wrote: Chrisd even wrote Mozilla a patch and submitted it on the bug. cool, do you apply the patch to windows tor bundles? if not, it could be worth to be applied :) on the other side, I've mixed feelings regarding the possible switch

Re: why polipo?

2010-02-20 Thread Andrew Lewman
On 02/20/2010 12:38 PM, Flamsmark wrote: Once Firefox fixes bug 280661, we don't need a http proxy at all. However, given the current pace of progress on 280661, we may switch to Chrome before the fix occurs. If the switch to Chrome was made, I assume that there'd be a port of the TorButton

Re: why polipo?

2010-02-20 Thread Andrew Lewman
On 02/20/2010 03:58 PM, Marco Bonetti wrote: Andrew Lewman wrote: Chrisd even wrote Mozilla a patch and submitted it on the bug. cool, do you apply the patch to windows tor bundles? if not, it could be worth to be applied :) No, we don't build our own Firefox yet. I've been resisting adding

Re: why polipo?

2010-02-20 Thread Rich Jones
Dealing with Chromium devs on incognito integratio is a great idea. While we're discussing the bundle, I'd like to mention something that's been on my mind lately. I recently ran a Privacy Tech Workshop at the Students for Free Culture conference in DC - and the general conclusion is that Tor/FF

Re: why polipo?

2010-02-20 Thread Andrew Lewman
On 02/20/2010 04:41 PM, Rich Jones wrote: While we're discussing the bundle, I'd like to mention something that's been on my mind lately. I recently ran a Privacy Tech Workshop at the Students for Free Culture conference in DC - and the general conclusion is that Tor/FF is too hard to use and

Re: why polipo?

2010-02-20 Thread Rich Jones
Egg -- My face Well done, guys. R On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Lewman and...@torproject.org wrote: On 02/20/2010 04:41 PM, Rich Jones wrote: While we're discussing the bundle, I'd like to mention something that's been on my mind lately. I recently ran a Privacy Tech Workshop at

Re: why polipo?

2010-02-19 Thread Andrew Lewman
On 02/15/2010 12:09 PM, Michael Gomboc wrote: Why is polipo used and no longer privoxy? The first question is, why a http proxy at all? The answer is, because Firefox SOCKS layer has hard-coded timeouts, and other issues, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=280661. Personally, I don't