On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 02:20:18PM -0400, cmeclax-sazri wrote:
Uploading large files sounds likely to me. Another possibility is that it's
running a hidden download server that a lot of people are downloading from.
Good point -- this could be a hidden service and you're actually seeing
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 05:28:55PM -0700, Softail wrote:
My relay seems to gain and lose the stable flag every day for the last
several days. It's been up more than a week. Is this normal? I don't
recall seeing this on a previous hosting provider and I suspect there is
something going on with
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:17:13AM -0400, Andrew Lewman wrote:
On Thursday, October 20, 2011 21:30:59 Rick Huebner wrote:
way of using Tor as a client. How can I run the TBB on my system
without interfering with my relay?
TBB supports randomized socks port and control port
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 08:09:31PM +1100, tony wrote:
In the Tor logs for a relay, I get the following message:
Dec 19 19:42:23.662 [notice] Renaming old configuration file to
Dec 19 19:42:23.662 [warn] Couldn't rename configuration file
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 03:35:16PM +0100, Sebastian Hahn wrote:
Hmm. Will this situation, then, result in a renewed effort to find
a few more people to run authorities?
The problem is that in the current situation, it gets worse with more
authorities, not better. Our voting mechanism
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:35:30PM -0500, Steve Snyder wrote:
New operator of a Tor bridge here. How can I tell that it is being used?
With a regular relay I can look up the stats on TorStatus, or I can see
that there are n current connections. But a bridge won't be published,
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 01:49:45AM +, Geoff Down wrote:
the read/write graphs in my relay's TorStatus.blutmagie.de page have
been broken for some time (flat-lined) but I assumed that was down to
my old software. However, I see that all the relays' pages are the
same. Is this data
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 05:21:01AM -0600, Scott Bennett wrote:
Answer 4: this isn't exactly what you want, yet it still provides relevant
information. Use the HeartbeatPeriod command in your torrc file to provide
usage information on a periodic basis with your choice of period.
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:36:57PM -0500, Steve Snyder wrote:
This application claims to identify bad Tor nodes for the purpose of
excluding them from use:
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
In general it is a poor plan to change your
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 03:02:46PM -0500, Sambuddho Chakravarty wrote:
The section on Performance data in the Tor metrics page
https://metrics.torproject.org/data.html , says that you are recording data
by running Torperf on 'moria', 'torperf' and 'siv'. I know 'moria' is a
exit node. But
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 08:29:08PM -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote:
Has there been a change in the routing algorithm, or any other network
changes that might explain this drop?
I opened https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5755 for a
related topic that I think will help answer questions
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 01:09:30AM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
I opened https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5755 for a
related topic that I think will help answer questions like this (or at
least narrow out possible explanations).
In theory, if your capacity has stayed
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 03:01:19AM +, k...@damnfbi.tk wrote:
Wed Jul 18 02:58:22 GMT 2012
3620058 onionskins decrypted
1258679 server-side TLS handshakes
544478 client-side TLS handshakes
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:50:20PM -0700, Mike Perry wrote:
Have you contemplated sending this over to the hackerspaces list?
There exists THE list for hackerspaces? Well hot damn. Are these them:
In most countries
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Sam Whited wrote:
Perhaps only registered companies should be sponsored ??? as much as I
hate to limit the scope of the project, I think this (might) prevent
abuse to a certain extent. Individuals who wanted to run an exit relay
of their own could
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:31:42PM +, delber wrote:
What we have found though, is that several smaller (not-for-profits or
coops) ISPs would be happy to help the Tor network, provided there is a
clear legal boundary. Something that our not-for-profit would create.
The downside is that they
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:32:30PM +0200, Julian Wissmann wrote:
we've got an offer for 10GBit
unmetered@750?, which is kind of sweet spot performance/buck wise and I
guess, that it could handle 8-12 Tor nodes performance wise to satisfy
the pipe. It would be a large number of high performance
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:01:13PM -0400, Steve Snyder wrote:
At the same time, much of our performance improvement comes from better
load balancing -- that is, concentrating traffic on the relays that can
handle it better. The result though is a direct tradeoff with relay
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:34:14PM +0100, mick wrote:
We've lined up our first funder (BBG, aka http://www.voanews.com/),
and they're excited to have us start as soon as we can. They want to
sponsor 125+ fast exits.
Forgive me, but what do they want in return? (He who pays the
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 05:49:34AM -0400, Motoko Kusanagi wrote:
I am very interested in running 100 Mbit (maybe even more) exit nodes at
100$/month, however, a question immediately comes to mind:
When we say 100Mbit exit node, do we imply really unmetered traffic at
100 Mbit, or do we mean
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 03:05:32PM +0100, Andrew Beveridge wrote:
- What do you currently pay for hosting/bandwidth, and how much bandwidth
do you get for that?
This is a complicated question, because I run a single Tor exit in a VPS on
my company dedicated server. I run a local company
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 09:58:54AM +0200, Sebastian G. bastik.tor wrote:
You ask volunteers to achieve a funders goal. Those might run a bridge
already, but un-publish it. Less bridges for the rest. They could run
relays and turn them into unpublished bridges. Less relays for anyone.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 08:25:40AM +0200, tor-admin wrote:
ON Saturday, August 11. 2012, 18:25:03 Roger Dingledine wrote:
The constraints are:
* 100mbit+ connectivity, though in practice I expect they will spend
most of their time doing far less than that.
* No more than 2 bridges per /24
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:13:56PM +0200, tor-admin wrote:
My understanding of bridge detection was, that Chinas GFW is able to detect
the Tor SSL handshake and does active bridge probing after a successful
connection to a (for the GFW) unknown bridge IP. So they should be able to
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:00:56PM +0200, Moritz Bartl wrote:
Comments? Do you want to see something else in an article that says Tor
I've updated the page to include some more suggestions. Please
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:15:46AM -0400, Tom Ritter wrote:
It would be good to add the exit IP to services that allow Tor Exits
to register to proactively stop abuse emails.
http://www.blocklist.de is one I had to add mine to within the first month.
Is this generally accepted as a good
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:25:59PM +0200, tagnaq wrote:
It is quite sad that one has to find out about 'critical' security
updates  via an unrelated thread on tor-talk  or the blog 
instead of getting an announcement on tor-announce  - where relay
operators are probably expecting
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 08:25:05AM -0400, eliaz wrote:
Despite these info lines Tor finally claims success. Does this mean
that I can ignore the previous info lines? Or are they telling me that
I have to do something? As far as I can tell my bridge is working fine.
Tor logs at log-level
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:22:23PM +0100, Linus Nordberg wrote:
Andreas Krey a.k...@gmx.de wrote
Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:16:16 +0100:
| We could technically run bridges too but we would have to discuss this
| internally some more first. Do we really want to take money for running
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:19:54PM +0100, androny wrote:
so, its pure relay.
It's a bridge, not a public relay:
Run arm and got:
So it isn't listed in the consensus, and thus arm doesn't think it
has any flags.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 08:28:30AM -0700, Brock Tice wrote:
I follow the guide for avoiding abuse notices, and generally I only
get 1/year of the DMCA variety. However, I recently received this
complaint, which appears to show spam originating from my Tor server
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 03:51:21PM -0500, Steve Snyder wrote:
On Friday, January 4, 2013 3:38pm, mick m...@rlogin.net said:
Thanks for the pointer - but yes, I'd prefer to stay away from the US.
I think the US is probably already well served with tor nodes.
Yes, about 25% of all
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:41:54PM +, Chris Baines wrote:
I am having some problems with tor (version 0.2.3.25-1), I get
warnings when it resumes form hibernation:
Feb 11 00:00:00.000 [warn] Could not bind to 0.0.0.0:80: Permission denied
Feb 11 00:00:00.000 [notice] Opening OR listener on
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:54:59PM +, Matt Joyce wrote:
I'm a little confused though for some reason only two of the instances
show up in atlas, the other one just keeps complaining it isn't in the
cached consensus and isn't seeing any usage either consensus health over
at metrics mentions
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:07:09PM +0100, Moritz Bartl wrote:
On 12.03.2013 08:41, jv...@altsci.com wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone receives a large number of DMCA infringement
notices and whether there was a resolution.
We do. Given that none of the regular DMCA complaint companies were
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:38:26PM -0400, Steve Snyder wrote:
Mar 12 16:13:57.000 [warn] Received http status code 504 (Gateway Time-out)
from server '184.108.40.206:80' while fetching consensus directory.
I've seen several reports of that lately. I assume Sina's directory
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:19:38PM -0400, Steve Snyder wrote:
I am running Tor v0.2.3.25 in a VPS that limits me to a max of 4096
sockets in use. How can I instruct Tor not to attempt to use more
than this number?
Yes, I know about ConstrainedSockets/ConstrainedSockSize, but the
way I read
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:09:44AM +0200, Dennis Ljungmark wrote:
You should be able to use normal ulimit style settings, Limiting open
files count (a socket is an open file).
Yes, you can do this, but it will degrade your relay (and hurt the
network) because it will unpredictably hang up on
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 01:45:03PM -0700, Daniel Wu wrote:
There are these connections, from 127.0.0.1 back to itself. Some sort of
internal process used by Tor? Not as concerned about these, since these
are internal. But still curious.
TCP 127.0.0.1:63417 127.0.0.1:63418 ESTABLISHED
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:20:02AM -, te...@tormail.org wrote:
I've been seeing these storms as well on my relay. I average something
like 100 connections for weeks and weeks per the tor logs, but then
suddenly it will jump into the thousands and I'll see the Failed to hand
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 09:43:00PM +0100, Nick wrote:
I have a reasonable ADSL connection, and a little always-on server.
The bandwidth is in the region of 2Mib/s down, something less up
(maybe 256Kib/s). Is it useful for me to run a tor relay with this
bandwidth? I'd like to run one which
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 05:13:09PM +0200, Andreas Krey wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:03:58 +, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
It'd be nice if dynamic DNS could solve this somehow, but it can't with
the current implementation. :/
Even if - it wouldn't help those users that have an open
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 07:46:50PM +0100, Tom McLoughlin wrote:
I'm looking for a VPS to run a tor exit node on, any ideas?
Be sure to check out the wiki page:
for what others have said in the past.
And if you have anything to add or
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:41:39PM +0800, TonyXue wrote:
Today when I was using htop to check my Tor server. I found that Tor was
running as /usr/sbin/tor --defaults-torrc
/usr/share/tor/tor-service-defaults-torrc --hush which seems Tor is not
using the configuration file
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:12:01PM +0200, Tor Exit wrote:
Why is it so bad if a Tor exit operator tries to match the use of
their node with their own moral beliefs?
I really would like to support this if I could.
Specifically, I'd love a way for exit relay operators to only allow
people to do
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:30:33PM -0400, krishna e bera wrote:
On 13-08-29 10:35 PM, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
What on earth is causing so many circuit creation requests in such a
One possibility, if i recall correctly, is that the Tor that comes with
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 10:06:58AM +, AFO Server Operator wrote:
I search for a option to restart my TOR relays after the TOR process did
crash on them? Im running TOR alpha on Debian
Why does it crash?
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 06:57:38PM -0800, I wrote:
Hej,brbrOn trying to get a non-exit relay going on a cheap VPS Vidalia
saysbrSep 02 03:48:32.146 [Warning] Received NETINFO cell with skewed time
from server at 220.127.116.11:9101.nbsp; It seems that our clock is ahead by 9
hours, 0 minutes,
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:57:24PM +0200, Niels Hesse wrote:
Thank you for your answer.
I really hope this will be resolved somehow.
Keep an eye on
if you want to follow along.
I just released 0.2.4.17-rc. Hopefully there will be debs of it soon.
It comes with a new feature:
- Relays now process the new NTor circuit-level handshake requests
with higher priority than the old TAP circuit-level handshake
requests. We still process some TAP
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 06:54:57AM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
In my spare time I'm also working on a blog post to explain what's going
on and what measures we're taking to keep things afloat.
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 10:54:58PM +0200, tor-admin wrote:
Just noticed that during bootstrap there are new warnings I never noticed
before. Is this a known issue or should I file a ticket?
Sep 05 21:56:15.000 [warn] Problem bootstrapping. Stuck at 85%: Finishing
handshake with first hop.
On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 10:16:51PM -0400, t...@t-3.net wrote:
I updated our node to the RC version some days ago. Earlier today,
it started to do a traffic amount that was higher than it had been
configured to do in torrc. Torrc was configured for 35M use and 40M
burst, but today it went to
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 04:00:08PM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
MB (capital B) = Megabyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte
Mb (small b) = Megabit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabit
But torrc does not support specifying rate limits in megabits anyway.
In 0.2.5 (aka git master
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 05:23:12PM -0400, Niles Rogoff wrote:
I scrapped my previous exit node and set up a new one on a different
machine. It's been running for 6 and a half hours, but does not have the
exit flag. The logs say both my ORPort and DirPort are reachable from the
Many people set up new fast relays and then wonder why their bandwidth
is not fully loaded instantly. In this post I'll walk you through the
lifecycle of a new fast non-exit relay, since Tor's bandwidth estimation
and load balancing has gotten much more complicated in recent years.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:34:12PM +0200, Stephan wrote:
On 11.09.2013 10:05, Random Tor Node Operator wrote:
Sep 10 08:59:40.000 [notice] Interrupt: we have stopped accepting new
connections, and will shut down in 30 seconds. Interrupt again to exit
I'm just taking a wild guess here,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:10:07AM -0600, Jesse Victors wrote:
Do I have to maintain an uptime of ~70 days to see fully utilization
then? This relay is on a personal computer with a static IP, so it isn't
on a dedicated server or anything like that. Usually my uptime is around
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 10:08:58PM -0400, Niles Rogoff wrote:
I was using arm when I noticed this line:
18.104.22.168 -- 22.214.171.124 (us) Purpose:
Ags=is_internal,need_capacity, Circuit ID: 5
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:27:57PM +0200, Moritz Bartl wrote:
The recipient share is calculated from the
throughput per relay * country factor
It might be worthwhile to make it clearer what throughput is here.
I hope it's not consensus weight, since that's not really a measure of
how much use
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:50:46AM -0700, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
The replay has settled into a fairly steady state (after losing its
flags except Named) of sending 5-10KB more per sec than it gets. I
have a feeling this is literally due to the TAP replies being bigger
than the TAP requests.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:10:25AM -0400, t...@t-3.net wrote:
The Wau Holland Foundation can currently only
reimburse via wire transfer.
This seems to be end-of-story in terms of who, in the end, is
ultimately getting liability/risk, and points to practically no
chance at anonymity
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:49:10PM -0400, Michael Gorbach wrote:
Hi, I started up a Tor relay several days ago, and the usage seems to be
ramping up nicely. However, I am seeing some unexpected messages like this,
in ARM and in the tor log files:
17:21:56 [NOTICE] Failed to terminate process
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 06:57:54PM +0200, Christian Dietrich wrote:
Now my problem is that tor relay #2 generates almost no traffic.
Log Relay #2:
Circuit handshake stats since last time: 63/63 TAP, 1/1 NTor.
Heartbeat: Tor's uptime
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 08:20:18PM -0400, Michael Gorbach wrote:
Nope, I don?t have any special pluggable transports configured in my
torrc, which is odd. What other processes would for be starting kicking
off? All I have set in torrc is [...] PortForwarding
That's likely the one!
You might be
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:56:22AM +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
Just check out the idkneitzel Node.
You are not running an Exit node, all of this is irrelevant to you.
But for those here who are wondering about running large exit relays,
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:13:08PM -0500, David Carlson wrote:
more sophisticated methods to detect and differentiate legitimate
activity from nefarious activity would be too difficult, i suppose.
The step after that is when they intentionally over-list in order to try
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:08:27PM -0400, krishna e bera wrote:
Once the network gets big enough so that each node and client doesnt
know all the nodes ip addresses, is there a compelling reason that ip
addresses of relays which are non-exit and non-guard need to be
published to the outside
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:19:42PM +0200, tor-admin wrote:
I am seeing many of these messages in the logs of torland1/torland2:
Sep 21 12:09:34.000 [warn] Received NETINFO cell with skewed time from server
at 126.96.36.199:9090. It seems that our clock is ahead by 15969 days, 10
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0800, I wrote:
I've been running a middle relay for years in my private net behind one
adress. no problems there. You should just never run an exit relay there.
EFF recommends against it in their Legal FAQ:
Should I run an exit relay from my
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:37:55AM +0200, nsane wrote:
there is a Tor setting MaxOnionQueueDelay in torrc (see
https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual-dev.html.en) with a default
of 1750 msec.
As operator of a Tor relay 0.2.4.17-rc (on Debian) I would like to know
were I can
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:42:51PM +0200, Konrad Neitzel wrote:
I am running a tor node (idkneitzel) on a linux server (using opensuse
Today I saw:
Oct 01 14:20:34.000 [warn] Failing because we have 8163 connections
already. Please raise your ulimit -n.
So I modified the
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 09:12:07PM -0800, I wrote:
This is best discussed on the big thread on tor-talk.
But see also
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:26:52PM +0100, Chris Whittleston wrote:
So I just started running a non-exit relay on a Raspberry Pi, and have hit
a problem where it seems huge numbers of circuits are being created which
overwhelms the system and can cause tor to crash. I read here (
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:36:58PM +0100, Chris Whittleston wrote:
Aha - makes sense, I'll just build it myself. Thanks for the quick response.
So - the new handshake in 0.2.4.x doesn't help with the ongoing issues? On
that page I linked it was suggested it might...
It does help! It helps
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:08:52AM -0700, Moritz Bartl wrote:
The current routing algorithm is not utilizing low-bandwidth
relays as well as it should. This is a known problem but difficult to
solve. If you can provide below 10 Mbit/s, it might be better for
go with a bridge instead
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:10:15PM -0400, Christopher Jones wrote:
Suggestions are welcome. I?m running with the default exit node policy,
which should block most of the abuse-laden ports. BitTorrent?s a little
harder to deal with. I?ve no qualms working with the ISP to mitigate
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:43:42PM +0900, mett wrote:
Since yesterday, the kern.log of the relay I'm running is flooded with
TCP: drop open request from.
I first thought it was a kind of DDOS on our servers but it seems to
be related to Tor (When I stop Tor, kernel doesn't
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:03:27AM -0400, Christopher Jones wrote:
I just wanted to thank the list members for giving me some great advice
on working with my ISP to deal with the DMCA nastygrams. I restricted
my exit policy to allow most legitimate TCP services and block the rest,
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 09:42:01AM -0700, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
With the slower computers, sometimes too many attempts to connect to
the ORPort (I am almost positive as part of TAP circuit building, but
not *really* sure) can eventually cause Tor to consume more physmem
than available and
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 06:12:47PM -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote:
That's correct, it takes a deliberate action on the part of the
administrator to become a relay; and another deliberate action to become
an exit relay.
Actually, that second part isn't true. Once you decide to become a relay,
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 09:58:20PM -0500, gq wrote:
On the Message Log console I was seeing hourly entries for TAP and
After over a week, I was getting very low traffic, so rolled back to
the stable version vidalia-relay-bundle-0.2.3.25-0.2.21-2.exe to
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:14:15AM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
People, can we please mind using the proper units.
I know Tor doesn't make it easy because Tor itself incorrectly
uses Bytes. But Tor is a network application, and real network
apps are measured in 'bits per second'
I understand your
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 02:29:04PM -0800, Gordon Morehouse wrote:
Why not just accept KB/sec, KiB/sec, GB/mo, GiB/mo in the config
That would be #9214 , implemented by CharlieB, shipped since
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:08:48AM +1100, Mark Jamsek wrote:
Dec 02 15:49:34.000 [notice] Now checking whether ORPort
188.8.131.52:9001 and DirPort 184.108.40.206:9030 are
reachable... (this may take up to 20 minutes --
Apart from the DNS hijacking entry(?), Tor is apparently up and
On Sun, Dec 01, 2013 at 10:32:09PM +0100, Sebastian Urbach wrote:
Your system is now lsted:
It appears that you're running a *relay* on EC2?
With a nickname implying that you think it's a
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 02:10:21PM +0100, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote:
Another possiblity: Advertised Bandwith in Globe shows not the
limit but my actual traffic. That is incidentally 1/8 of the maximum. :-)
I think that's it. See also
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:33:21PM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote:
The consensus weight is computed using
a) the relay's self-advertised bandwidth in its descriptor:
b) the ratios of bandwidth weights for various types
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 01:02:29PM -0500, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote:
Also keep in mind that what the bandwidth
authorities actually measure is not total capacity
but spare stream capacity (by downloading large
files through at least 5 different two hop
circuits times for each relay).
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:57:18PM -0700, Jesse Victors wrote:
Thanks guys for the tips. I followed the docs and suggestions here and
on the blog/website, carefully worded an email to them, and sent it off
earlier today. They just got back with me and they were on board with
the idea! They
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:10:57AM -0600, Scott Bennett wrote:
Along with my recent OS upgrade I have also updated my tor relay from
0.2.4.3-alpha to 0.2.4.20. The latter version write two identical copies
of every message to the log file. I have only one uncommented Log line
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:34:49AM -0600, Scott Bennett wrote:
Assuming that the tor browser is still a fork off of firefox from a few
years ago, then I'd still like to build it using local tuning. firefox is
such a CPU hog that I'd really like to get the most out of compiler
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 01:22:47AM -0700, Jesse Victors wrote:
Thanks again guys for the help. usuexit is now online, and should be
functioning properly, but there seem to be a few mystifying issues:
1) TorStatus marks it as hibernating which it clearly isn't; it's
online and accepting
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 10:41:21PM +0100, Andreas Krey wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:56:23 +, Tora Tora Tora wrote:
On a similar subject, is there a way to limit Tor's per connection
speed, i.e., not total speed.
Actually there is:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:15:11AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I'm on Debian and did a service tor reload (not restart) and tor
crashed! I didn't realise immediately, took may be a minute to realise
and restart. Anyway apologies to any connections that were going
through this relay.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:39:55PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2014-02-27 23:12, Greg W wrote:
I turned on some logging on my firewall today to help troubleshoot and
issue and noticed a load of connections from external addresses to port
9050 on my exit node. I don't think that should be
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 09:22:10AM -0600, Greg W wrote:
You've confirmed my thoughts. I suspected that some people were bulk
scanning relays/exits looking for open proxies too which is why I was
curious if any other operators were seeing this. Thus far today I've got
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 09:35:40PM -0800, Steve Rich wrote:
I think you guys are right, thanks.
The question I have now however is, should I set my RelayBandwidth limit to
Currently the advertised bandwidth is 1MB/s, which doesn't see right.
You should definitely rate limit (both
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:23:50PM -0400, Tora Tora Tora wrote:
Why would any IP address need
more than one (or several simultaneous) connection is beyond me.
See https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/9969 for one case.
I wonder if these are clients running Tor versions from back
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 03:26:07PM +0100, Oliver Schönefeld wrote:
i updated from Tor 0.2.3.25 (relay 266C0CADC79F802C554019887324A57332A1DA70)
to Tor 0.2.4.21 yesterday and the relay fingerprint changed to
1 - 100 of 344 matches
Mail list logo