Re: [tor-relays] Reaching out to webiron

All, I will be blunt and say that I simply ignore them. athey are fully aware of what Tor is, have been told by me and other operators how to block exit nodes and explain that we are simply a conduit. I am not ignoring them out of spite, but frankly it is tiring to be redundant. I get

Re: [tor-relays] Reaching out to webiron

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:09:47 +1100 Tor wrote: > I don't ignore abuse reports, and I've found that Tor's boilerplate > abuse templates almost always provide a good response. So it's just a > matter of copying and pasting the relevant section and sending it to them. > >

Re: [tor-relays] Reaching out to webiron

> On 8 Feb 2017, at 17:59, niftybunny wrote: > >> >> (And the likely impact on networks with few IPv4 addresses, which tend >> to be in areas with lower levels of network access: typically poorer >> areas and less well developed countries.) >> > > *citation

Re: [tor-relays] Reaching out to webiron

> > (And the likely impact on networks with few IPv4 addresses, which tend > to be in areas with lower levels of network access: typically poorer > areas and less well developed countries.) > *citation needed niftybunny ab...@to-surf-and-protect.net

Re: [tor-relays] Reaching out to webiron

> On 8 Feb 2017, at 15:00, Andrew Deason wrote: > > I run an exit node, and as such, I get abuse emails like this from time > to time: > > > Mostly I ignore them, but since their automated report

Re: [tor-relays] Hostname in DirAuthority config

> On 8 Feb 2017, at 04:51, Dr Gerard Bulger wrote: > > I wonder if TOR design should now be more supportive of variable IPs and a > spread of IPs for TOR exits. I am not an IT guru. Tor relays detect their own IP address, and can use DNS to do so. ("Address" accepts a

Re: [tor-relays] Hostname in DirAuthority config

> On 8 Feb 2017, at 02:53, Andrew Smith wrote: > > OK, thanks for the clarification and raising the ticket. > > To answer the why - for starters I'm trying to run a local tor network for > fun and to learn more about tor. > > Why am I trying to put a hostname in

Re: [tor-relays] no ipv6 traffic from/to relays ?

> On 8 Feb 2017, at 00:07, t...@afo-tm.org wrote: > > On 06.02.17 09:25, nusenu wrote: >> The first release with the fix for [1] was in 0.3.0.3-alpha [2]. >> So if you run an IPv6 exit, upgrading to 0.3.0.3-alpha potentially >> increases the tor network's IPv6 exit capacity. >> teor and nickm

Re: [tor-relays] Reaching out to webiron

On 8/02/2017 15:00, Andrew Deason wrote: > I assume some people will say this isn't even worth the effort; it's not > like it's hard to just ignore those reports. But it doesn't take much > effort to just try to talk ot them, and it perhaps helps to give tor a > reputation of cooperation and

[tor-relays] Reaching out to webiron

I run an exit node, and as such, I get abuse emails like this from time to time: Mostly I ignore them, but since their automated report contains the sentence "Please feel free to send us your comments or responses.",

Re: [tor-relays] assign_to_cpuworker failed

Since, today I got this warning: Feb 07 20:01:54.000 [warn] Please upgrade! This version of Tor (0.2.9.8) is not recommended, according to the directory authorities. Recommended versions are:

Re: [tor-relays] assign_to_cpuworker failed

Ahh, I see ... I've used this for both instances: MaxMemInQueues 400 MB I guess, that I have to reduce it. Regards, On 07.02.2017 18:52, Petrusko wrote: > It's running fine since this last upgrade, on my case. > (I've reduced RAM used by shutting down an instance... no problem, full > bandwidth

Re: [tor-relays] assign_to_cpuworker failed

Hi! Thanks for your answer. Just compiling the "new" version. If the problem persists, than I would also shut down one instance. The full configured bandwidth was used, but it really wasn't stable. I got this message once a week or so ... I will give a feedback soon. ;-) Regards, On

Re: [tor-relays] assign_to_cpuworker failed

It's running fine since this last upgrade, on my case. (I've reduced RAM used by shutting down an instance... no problem, full bandwidth is used now!) Good luck ;) diffusae : > Hi! > > Didn't update right now and got the same message today. > So, it looks like, the address field wasn't the

Re: [tor-relays] Hostname in DirAuthority config

I wonder if TOR design should now be more supportive of variable IPs and a spread of IPs for TOR exits. I am not an IT guru. I gather it was thought to be good manners that the IP of Tor exits were known to the public. It would at least let recipients know that the originating IP could

Re: [tor-relays] Hostname in DirAuthority config

OK, thanks for the clarification and raising the ticket. To answer the why - for starters I'm trying to run a local tor network for fun and to learn more about tor. Why am I trying to put a hostname in there? Because the system I'm setting up the network in may not have static IPs. As I

Re: [tor-relays] no ipv6 traffic from/to relays ?

On 06.02.17 09:25, nusenu wrote: The first release with the fix for [1] was in 0.3.0.3-alpha [2]. So if you run an IPv6 exit, upgrading to 0.3.0.3-alpha potentially increases the tor network's IPv6 exit capacity. teor and nickm plan a backport for tor 0.2.9.x [1]