Tim Wilson-Brown - teor: > We tried adding NonAnonymous to the name, and it was unwieldy. And it > also confuses the semantics: what if we have multiple types of > SingleOnionMode?
If we do have multiple types of SingleOnionMode we should specify this type as a value to NonAnonymousOnionServiceMode option (or so). Why not? Sorry for my bias towards NonAnonymousOnions but SingleOnion really confuses me. > Also, see my reply to David, where I explain that NonAnonymousMode > applies to the entire tor instance, including things that are totally > unrelated to Single Onion Services, like whether you can open a > SOCKSPort or run Tor2Web. That's why I propose to use "NonAnonymousOnionServiceMode 1" instead of just "NonAnonymousMode 1". > We could add a compilation option --enable-single-onion-mode instead > of NonAnonymousMode, but I think making Single Onion Service > operators compile their own tor is unnecessary. Gosh, it would be really inconvenient and nontransparent. And error-prone. -- Ivan Markin _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
