Nick Mathewson: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <[email protected]> wrote: >> Nick Mathewson: >>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Scott, >>>> >>>> It is nice to see you posting again, I had wondered where you had gone. >>>> >>>> Scott Bennett: >>>>> I know this really belongs on tor-talk, but I haven't been subscribed >>>>> to it for a long time now. Sorry if posting this here bothers anyone. >>>> >>>> >>>> Seems like a fine place to discuss relay problems, which is what it >>>> sounds like, no? >>> >>> Maaybe! The very best place would be the bugtracker, of course. (I do >>> seem to recall that you have some issues with trac -- I'm just >>> mentioning the bugtracker so that other people don't get the idea that >>> the mailing lists are the best place for bug reports. But a bug >>> report on the mailing list is much much better than no bug report at >>> all.) >>> >> >> Oh, I don't mean to imply not to file bugs but rather, if we have a >> guard that fails circuits, I'd say we should discuss it openly. Is it a >> load issue? Or something else? > > We should definitely discuss stuff openly, yeah. It was the possible > ExcludeNodes bug that seemed most like an issue that would go well > with the bugtracker to me.
Agreed - that said - I like the idea of a client telling users that a given guard is failing a lot of circuits - is there anyway today that we can start to learn the distribution of those failures? Say with some useful client side logging? All the best, Jake _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
