What if a Tor Bridge blocked connections to the tor network to selective
client IPs? Would we keep it in BridgeDB because its sometimes useful?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:02 PM arisbe wrote:
> Children should be seen and not herd. The opposite goes for Tor relays.
> Arisbe
>
>
> On 8/30/2018
Children should be seen and not herd. The opposite goes for Tor
relays.
Arisbe
On 8/30/2018 2:11 PM, Nathaniel Suchy
wrote:
So this exit node is censored by Turkey. That means
any site blocked in Turkey is blocked on the exit. What
How is situation 1 different from 2 from the user perspective? In both
cases the user doesn't have access because of the country where the exit is
running.
A lot of countries have various levels of blocky (for example torrent
websites in UK). Is the solution to only run all exits in a few "good"
Matthew: Built in functionality, maybe, an addon, no. Also either solution
is a bandaid to the actual problem that we're allowing an exit with no
contact information to censor Tor users with impunity!
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 8:01 PM Matthew Glennon
wrote:
> Could this be mitigated with a
Could this be mitigated with a detection addon in Tor Browser? Detect that
the site may be blocked at the exit and offer to fetch a new circuit for
the site?
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018, 19:22 Nathaniel Suchy wrote:
> The exit is behind a filtered ISP. Opposed to a website blocking exits.
> That’s
The exit is behind a filtered ISP. Opposed to a website blocking exits.
That’s the difference.
1) The content provider causes the block.
2) The exit causes the block.
In situation two a censored user may give up on Tor entirely. Should we
allow exits in China or Iraq or Syria or Turkey or the
A country's ISPs blocking some websites is not the exit blocking it and the
result is the same than websites blocking the country, users of that exit
can't access the websites just because the exit is in that country but
doesn't do any filtering itself.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, 16:14 Nathaniel Suchy,
Hi Nusenu,
Yes, the current plan is to use MeetBot for the meetings.
I will get a wiki page set up that the minutes / logs can be tracked on.
> On Aug 30, 2018, at 3:52 PM, nusenu wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
>> Starting September 11th @ 1:00AM UTC, we will be piloting regular
>> relay
Hi Rob,
The idea behind the two times is to allow people from different timezones / on
different schedules to attend during their non-working hours.
Overseas was the wrong choice of words, anyone is welcome to attend the meeting
that works best for them (or both, if they choose to).
After
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, 14:11 Nathaniel Suchy, wrote:
> So this exit node is censored by Turkey. That means any site blocked in
> Turkey is blocked on the exit. What about an exit node in China or Syria or
> Iraq? They censor, should exits there be allowed? I don't think they
> should. Make them
Then assign a bad exit flag and let it middle relay.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:58 PM Gary wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 3:25 PM grarpamp wrote:
>
>> This particular case receiving mentions for at least a few months...
>> D1E99DE1E29E05D79F0EF9E083D18229867EA93C kommissarov
> I've had a "discussion" with a WebIron employee once, where I patiently
> explained about Tor. It ended with him making stupid threats, and since
> that day I blacklisted W.I. on our mail servers. .
>
> -Ralph
Would that be in USA?
___
tor-relays
Hello
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 3:25 PM grarpamp wrote:
> This particular case receiving mentions for at least a few months...
> D1E99DE1E29E05D79F0EF9E083D18229867EA93C kommissarov 185.125.33.114
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 22:11, Nathaniel Suchy wrote:
> So this exit node is censored by Turkey.
On 30.08.18 22:07, Andrew Deason wrote:
> For what it's worth, webiron has actually responded to my replies to
> their reports before. I'm not saying it's a great use of time arguing
> with them, but the replies are actually read by a human (at least,
> sometimes).
I've had a "discussion" with a
So this exit node is censored by Turkey. That means any site blocked in
Turkey is blocked on the exit. What about an exit node in China or Syria or
Iraq? They censor, should exits there be allowed? I don't think they
should. Make them relay only, (and yes that means no Guard or HSDir flags
too)
> Starting September 11th @ 1:00AM UTC, we will be piloting regular
> relay operator meetings in #tor-relays on irc.oftc.net.
will you also use the meetbot like the other tor meetings do, so those that
can't join
can read the log after the meeting?
--
https://twitter.com/nusenu_
Hello Tor relay operators!
Starting September 11th @ 1:00AM UTC, we will be piloting regular relay
operator meetings in #tor-relays on irc.oftc.net. These meetings will be an
opportunity to introduce yourself to the operator community, make new contacts
and provide updates to the group on the
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:48:33 +0200
Ralph Seichter wrote:
> Automated complaints are a different matter. I don't feel the need to
> converse with Fail2ban or WebIron bots.
For what it's worth, webiron has actually responded to my replies to
their reports before. I'm not saying it's a great use
This particular case receiving mentions for at least a few months...
D1E99DE1E29E05D79F0EF9E083D18229867EA93C kommissarov 185.125.33.114
The relay won't [likely] be badexited because neither it nor its upstream is
shown to be doing anything malicious. Simple censorship isn't enough.
And except
"Your relay has a very large number of connections to other relays. Is
your outbound address the same as your relay address? Found 12
connections to 8 relays. Found 12 current canonical connections, in 0
of which we were a non-canonical peer. 4 relays had more than 1
connection, 0 had more than
Hi,
I just setup a new relay[0]. One of the messages I got is the following:
"Your relay has a very large number of connections to other relays. Is
your outbound address the same as your relay address? Found 12
connections to 8 relays. Found 12 current canonical connections, in 0 of
which we
> On 30 Aug 2018, at 16:03, Totor be wrote:
>
> That's what I've done, but what is the rationale if I may ask ?
> Personally, I prefer not to see a relay than seeing one down, but this is
> extremely subjective!
MyFamily exists to protect users from end-to-end correlation.
(And relay
Hi Ian
That's what I've done, but what is the rationale if I may ask ?
Personally, I prefer not to see a relay than seeing one down, but this is
extremely subjective!
Thanks
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:11 PM Iain Learmonth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 29/08/18 13:16, Totor be wrote:
> > This 4th relay
23 matches
Mail list logo
