Scott Bennett wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:13:42 -0600 Jim McClanahan jimmy...@copper.net
Scott Bennett wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:14:25 -0600 Jim McClanahan
jimmy...@copper.net
wrote:
Scott Bennett wrote:
Ouch. This provides another example in support of
On Wed, July 1, 2009 00:02, Erilenz wrote:
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?
I wrote some ideas (in italian) on it some time ago, for e-Privacy 2009:
* on the Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:56:05PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
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
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:34:38 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers t...@planetcobalt.net
wrote:
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
On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:34:38 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
Just standard netiquette for followups to messages posted on mailing
^^^
What about it?
Had you taken
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:06:52 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers t...@planetcobalt.net
wrote:
On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:34:38 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
Just standard netiquette for followups to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Jim McClanahan wrote:
Scott Bennett wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:13:42 -0600 Jim McClanahan jimmy...@copper.net
Scott Bennett wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:14:25 -0600 Jim McClanahan
jimmy...@copper.net
wrote:
Scott Bennett wrote:
On 06/30/2009 10:20 PM, Michael wrote:
accept *.google.com:80
thinking aloud...
What if:
o Google was supportive of good uses of Tor, for its services
o Google ran an exit in its IP space(s) matching the exits as masked above
o Tor had a method to back-propagate signed kill commands based
On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:06:52 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
Once again your presumption is mistaken. I had indeed read that
gloriously opaque stretch of text, though it has been a while since I
last suffered through it.
Ansgar, Scott,
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Ansgar Wiechers t...@planetcobalt.net wrote:
On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:06:52 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
snip discussion about netiquette
Guys, this is or-talk, in your
--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Freemor free...@gmail.com wrote:
Martin Fick mogul...@yahoo.com wrote:
In my scenario, the point of hard coding the path is
to obfuscate the final URL, ...
... But hidden services provide this functionality
already.
They provide an obfuscation to a service that
use eepsite urls: www.i2p2.de
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:27 PM, mogul...@yahoo.com wrote:
The alternative, remote hosting anonymously is
hard,
--- On Wed, 7/1/09, Max petersonm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:27 PM, mogul...@yahoo.com wrote:
The alternative, remote hosting anonymously is hard,
use eepsite urls: www.i2p2.de
Could you please explain what you mean? eepsites seem
to be just I2P's equivalent to
--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Martin Fick mogul...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- 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
Edward Langenback wrote:
Jim McClanahan wrote:
I probably should have canned the sarcasm, but I do think that any
disabling of the client from the network should be easily reversible.
Part of that is just my philosophy. But it also has a practical element
in terms of what is required to
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 17:15 -0600, Jim McClanahan wrote:
I remain unconvinced that what happened in the case of tbreg should be
determining policy for the Tor project, at least as far as client
activity is concerned. To the extent the people who installed really
didn't know it involved Tor,
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:46:49 -0400 Marcus Griep tormas...@xpdm.us
wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 17:15 -0600, Jim McClanahan wrote:
I remain unconvinced that what happened in the case of tbreg should be
determining policy for the Tor project, at least as far as client
activity is concerned.
17 matches
Mail list logo
