On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Andrew Lewman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:08:36 +0530 > Sathyanarayanan Gunasekaran <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In general, these look great. > Some nitpicking items: > >> Here are the .htmls - >> https://people.torproject.org/~gsathya/html/index.html > > 1. The majority of users aren't going to know which obfsproxy browser > they're using. I understand the difference, but to make a decision, > we should only ship one obfsTBB and assume everyone is using it as a > target for this site. I'm guessing we just call the > obfsproxy-flashproxy-tbb as obfsTBB and move forward with it. > > 2. The correct email address is [email protected] > > 3. I think we should scrap "normal bridges" and only promoted obfuscated > bridges. In the bigger picture, "normal bridges" are already subject to > DPI attack and blocked in many places in the world based on Tor's > network signature alone. All bridges should be obfsproxy bridges.
I think we'll need to see larger numbers of bridges providing obfsproxy transports before considering these the only bridges we hand out. I believe we have about 5-10x as many "normal" bridges as "obfs" bridges, so I would be hesitant to have all the users of normal bridges abruptly switch over to the limited set of obfs bridges at this point... But I do agree that every bridge should also be an obfs bridge. --Aaron > > -- > Andrew > http://tpo.is/contact > pgp 0x6B4D6475 > _______________________________________________ > tor-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
