Re: [tor-relays] Tor 0.3.0.10 not listed as a recommended version

On 06.08.17 00:41, Chad MILLER wrote: > We have several supported lines. Simple greater-than doesn't tell us > anything about later-ness. That's common when developing on multiple branches. In any case, I did not say that greater-than is relevant, only newer-than on a production branch, but even

Re: [tor-relays] Tor 0.3.0.10 not listed as a recommended version

On 06.08.2017 00:33, Ralph Seichter wrote: > On 06.08.17 00:08, Chad MILLER wrote: > >> Careful. 0.3.0.1 > 0.2.9.14orsomething, but the former is probably >> too buggy. > I fail to see how that relates to my earlier message. When a new Tor > production version is released, it is by definition

Re: [tor-relays] Tor 0.3.0.10 not listed as a recommended version

We have several supported lines. Simple greater-than doesn't tell us anything about later-ness. On Aug 5, 2017 15:33, "Ralph Seichter" wrote: On 06.08.17 00:08, Chad MILLER wrote: > Careful. 0.3.0.1 > 0.2.9.14orsomething, but the former is probably > too buggy. I

Re: [tor-relays] Tor 0.3.0.10 not listed as a recommended version

On 06.08.17 00:08, Chad MILLER wrote: > Careful. 0.3.0.1 > 0.2.9.14orsomething, but the former is probably > too buggy. I fail to see how that relates to my earlier message. When a new Tor production version is released, it is by definition recommended, or it would not be a production release in

Re: [tor-relays] Tor 0.3.0.10 not listed as a recommended version

Careful. 0.3.0.1 > 0.2.9.14orsomething, but the former is probably too buggy. On Aug 5, 2017 14:59, "Ralph Seichter" wrote: On 05.08.17 22:17, Roger Dingledine wrote: > [...] I opened two tickets, one for making this particular situation > less likely to happen

Re: [tor-relays] Tor 0.3.0.10 not listed as a recommended version

On 05.08.17 22:17, Roger Dingledine wrote: > [...] I opened two tickets, one for making this particular situation > less likely to happen again, and another for fixing the whole treadmill > where people have to edit text files before a new version should come > out [...] No longer displaying

Re: [tor-relays] Tor 0.3.0.10 not listed as a recommended version

On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 12:34:35PM +0200, Ralph Seichter wrote: > Hello, > > after updating to Tor 0.3.0.10, I see the following warning on my nodes: > > This version of Tor (0.3.0.10) is newer than any recommended version > in its series, according to the directory authorities. > > Could

Re: [tor-relays] ORSN DNS servers vs OpenNic

On my LAN I'm using Unbound, forwarding all requests to "root servers". I've read it's not really cool for a high traffic server, to preserve those root servers...? But for home, I think it's perfect. For an exit, why not using too a dns cache as Igor said, may be less agressive for the root

Re: [tor-relays] Tor relay operators at SHA2017 ?

On 1 August 2017 at 21:24, Schroedinger wrote: > if anyone at SHA2017 is interested in meeting up, perhaps we could set > up a self-organized session for Tor relay operators. I'm here as well. I'll happily meet and talk about Tor! Cheers, Alex. -- Alexander Færøy

Re: [tor-relays] Go home GeoIP, you're drunk.

On 04.08.17 00:12, Roger Dingledine wrote: > It should not affect your consensus weight -- that number is made by > several vantage points actually making Tor circuits through relays > including yours [...] It has only been two days, but the consensus weight has not changed much. As I expected,

[tor-relays] Tor 0.3.0.10 not listed as a recommended version

Hello, after updating to Tor 0.3.0.10, I see the following warning on my nodes: This version of Tor (0.3.0.10) is newer than any recommended version in its series, according to the directory authorities. Could one of the devs please update the relevant data? Thanks. -Ralph