On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Scott Bennett benn...@cs.niu.edu wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:19:21 -0500 punkle jones
punkle.jo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unlurking for the first time, I think.
Welcome to the fray! ;)
Why not join forces with a popular freeware/shareware product
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:13:42 -0600 Jim McClanahan jimmy...@copper.net
wrote:
Scott, when I did a reply on your email, it (tried to) sent it your
personal email account rather than the list.
You probably were replying to the message sent directly to you, so that
is quite likely. :-)
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:13:13 -0500 punkle jones punkle.jo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Scott Bennett benn...@cs.niu.edu wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:19:21 -0500 punkle jones
punkle.jo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unlurking for the first time, I think.
Welcome
I was trying to email you and it bounced:
Final-Recipient: rfc822; benn...@cs.niu.edu
Original-Recipient:
rfc822;benn...@cs.niu.edu
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mp.cs.niu.edu
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1
benn...@cs.niu.edu... Access denied
Ah, I see. It is the duplicate messages from you that were confusing
me.
Why duplicate messages? As somebody else has pointed out recently, the
fact that I can post on or-talk means I am subscribed to or-talk.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan jimmy...@copper.net
wrote:
Ah, I see. It is the duplicate messages from you that were confusing
me.
Why duplicate messages? As somebody else has pointed out recently, the
fact that I can post on or-talk means I am subscribed to or-talk.
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
Ah, I see. It is the duplicate messages from you that were confusing
me.
Why duplicate messages? As somebody else has pointed out recently, the
fact that I can post on or-talk means I am subscribed
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:18:50 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers t...@planetcobalt.net
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
Ah, I see. It is the duplicate messages from you that were confusing
me.
Why duplicate messages? As somebody else has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/28/2009 09:05 AM, grarpamp wrote:
I'd give it a 15 minute mile high eyeball if I
had the 'before the jump' cache files or
a 'getinfo desc/all-recent' from back then.
I just don't have that dataset.
I have uploaded a tarball of the 00:00 UTC
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:18:50 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers t...@planetcobalt.net
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
Ah, I see. It is the duplicate messages from you that were
confusing me.
Why duplicate
Hello!
[Please reply to list only. Thanks.]
Scott Bennett wrote to or-t...@seul.org, punkle.jo...@gmail.com on Tue, 30 Jun
2009 02:15:32 -0500 (CDT):
I haven't lately looked at the distribution of relays over version strings,
Just quick stat from
perl -e '
while () {
$tor{$1}++
Michael(co...@cozziconsulting.com)@Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:44:03AM -0400:
Not to jump in with both feet, but here's some possible starting text
ideas for the IT People Use Tor section...
Ahem...
IT Professionals use Tor:
* To verify IP based firewall rules: A firewall may
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:33:38 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers t...@planetcobalt.net
wrote:
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:18:50 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers t...@planetcobalt.net
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
Ah, I
Obfuscated URL Paths?
Would it be possible to create a URL or some longer string that
describes a hidden path through the tor network to a specific
hidden URL and to implement a routing mechanism to access
documents (files) using this Obfuscated URL?
I am fully aware of hidden services, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/30/2009 08:47 PM, Martin Fick wrote:
Would it be possible to create a URL or some longer string that
describes a hidden path through the tor network to a specific
hidden URL and to implement a routing mechanism to access
documents (files)
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
Ah, I see. It is the duplicate messages from you that were
confusing me.
Why duplicate messages? As somebody else has pointed out recently,
the fact that I can
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Fick mogul...@yahoo.com wrote:
I envision an onion encrypted URL along with the exact path through
tor (the three hops) also onion encrypted. This would be similar
to the way a client normally wraps requests through tor, but the
wrapping
--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Karsten Loesing karsten.loes...@gmx.net wrote:
On 06/30/2009 08:47 PM, Martin Fick wrote:
Would it be possible to create a URL or some longer
string that describes a hidden path through the tor
network to a specific hidden URL and to implement a
routing mechanism
--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Freemor free...@gmail.com wrote:
I envision an onion encrypted URL along with the exact
path through tor (the three hops) also onion encrypted. This
would be similar to the way a client normally wraps requests through
tor, but the wrapping would happen up front and
already in here:
http://offsystem.sf.net
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Martin Fick mogul...@yahoo.com wrote:
Obfuscated URL Paths?
Would it be possible to create a URL or some longer string that
describes a hidden path through the tor network to a specific
hidden URL and to implement
It has been a while since I have run Tor and wanted to get current and
configure a server. I pulled down the installations bundles, both
2.0.35-0.1.14-universal and 2.1.16-rc-0.1.14-universal. I'm trying to
do the installation on my Intel Mac running OX X 10.5.7 and Firefox
3.5. When I
Hi,
Firefox 3.5 was released today. Has anyone investigated the new video tag that
it supports with regards to whether or not it can cause leaks with Tor?
--
Erilenz
Bill Weiss wrote:
Michael(co...@cozziconsulting.com)@Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:44:03AM -0400:
Similar to all of these:
* To troubleshoot connectivity problems from the outside of their network
(i.e. to see what parts of the internet can or can't see their site).
Hi Bill,
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Max wrote:
already in here:
http://offsystem.sf.net http://offsystem.sf.net/
I've had a look at OFF system and I think I'd rather stick with Freenet
for such purposes.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Martin Fick mogul...@yahoo.com
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Martin Fick mogul...@yahoo.com wrote:
In my scenario, the point of hard coding the path is to
obfuscate the final URL, how could this be done
differently? In this scenario, it requires all 3 nodes
to decrypt the final URL, one node by itself
So some ass thought it would be great to spam from my node, because today I
got a complaint about abuse.
The node BillyGoat (FP: 12b9b187422b2a7752f861aa0b86e4d99fa88dc0) has been
taken offline because of this. I'm not going to argue with my hosting
company as they support my websites, and I
Unfortunately some ISPs just aren't willing to deal with the issues;
that's how it works. You could always run a non-exit relay if you wish
to, since they'll pretty much never have abuse complaints
(theoretically, you could receive complaints related to an end user
connecting to you, but that's
Kyle Williams wrote:
So some ass thought it would be great to spam from my node, because
today I got a complaint about abuse.
The node BillyGoat (FP: 12b9b187422b2a7752f861aa0b86e4d99fa88dc0)
has been taken offline because of this. I'm not going to argue with
my hosting company as they
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Michael co...@cozziconsulting.com wrote:
Kyle Williams wrote:
So some ass thought it would be great to spam from my node, because today
I got a complaint about abuse.
The node BillyGoat (FP: 12b9b187422b2a7752f861aa0b86e4d99fa88dc0) has
been taken offline
Michael wrote:
Kyle Williams wrote:
reject 0.0.0.0/8:* http://0.0.0.0/8:*
reject 169.254.0.0/16:* http://169.254.0.0/16:*
reject 127.0.0.0/8:* http://127.0.0.0/8:*
reject 192.168.0.0/16:* http://192.168.0.0/16:*
reject 10.0.0.0/8:* http://10.0.0.0/8:*
reject 172.16.0.0/12:*
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Michael co...@cozziconsulting.com wrote:
Michael wrote:
Kyle Williams wrote:
reject 0.0.0.0/8:* http://0.0.0.0/8:*
reject 169.254.0.0/16:* http://169.254.0.0/16:*
reject 127.0.0.0/8:* http://127.0.0.0/8:*
reject 192.168.0.0/16:* http://192.168.0.0/16:*
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Erilenzeril...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Firefox 3.5 was released today. Has anyone investigated the new video tag that
it supports with regards to whether or not it can cause leaks with Tor?
video and audio should have exactly the same attack surface as img has.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Michael co...@cozziconsulting.com wrote:
Kyle Williams wrote:
reject 0.0.0.0/8:* http://0.0.0.0/8:*
reject 169.254.0.0/16:* http://169.254.0.0/16:*
reject 127.0.0.0/8:* http://127.0.0.0/8:*
reject 192.168.0.0/16:* http://192.168.0.0/16:*
reject 10.0.0.0/8:*
Hi all,
One thing I do not see is support for an exit policy such as:
accept *.yahoo.com:80
accept *.google.com:80
Is this type of statement supported but undocumented, and what would
people think of having that ability?
From my standpoint, it would certainly make running
34 matches
Mail list logo
