On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:20:11PM +0200, Tom van der Woerdt wrote:
> I agree, and this one in particular is important to some operators: by
> allowing a relay to specify itself in the family, one can just have a single
> configuration file for all relays in a family.
Maybe somebody wants to
> On 15 Sep 2015, at 08:34, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:20:11PM +0200, Tom van der Woerdt wrote:
>> I agree, and this one in particular is important to some operators: by
>> allowing a relay to specify itself in the family, one can just have a single
>> Can this be downgraded to an informational message? (or eliminated entirely?)
>>
>> Penalties can be quite discouraging, particularly for minor configuration
>> variants.
>>
>> Tim
>
>I agree, and this one in particular is important to some operators: by
>allowing a relay to specify itself
Hi nusenu,
>Do you consider in-family diversity so important - even though all of
>them are run by a single entity anyway?
> How about having a badge for tor network wide diversity?
> I'd consider the tor network's overall diversity far more important than
> in-family diversity because clients
> On 13 Sep 2015, at 18:18, Sean Saito wrote:
>
> >"No Self-Referencing Relays"
>
> >I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that but I assume it is a MyFamily
>
> >config where a relay includes his own fingerprint. Why does that hurt?
>
> >The unnecessary descriptor
We'll remove it.
-V
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 at 05:20 Tom van der Woerdt wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 2015, at 22:09, teor wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Sep 2015, at 18:18, Sean Saito wrote:
>
> >"No Self-Referencing Relays"
>
> >I'm not sure what exactly you
Hi,
tor-roster has a badge for in-family geo diversity:
"Geo Diversity in Relays (Number of countries / Number of relays >= 0.5)"
Do you consider in-family diversity so important - even though all of
them are run by a single entity anyway?
I'd consider the tor network's overall diversity far