Hi,
On Monday, 19 January 2009 at 17:13:45 -0500, Nick Mathewson wrote :
Hang on! This is a FAQ! The state of, and issues surrounding,
IPv6 in Tor are explained here:
https://wiki.torproject.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#IPv6
Please excuse my naive question:
wouldn't *requiring a
I see that the Tor client settings for DNSPort and DNSListenAddress (as are
SocksPort and SocksListenAddress) are subject to the SocksPolicy setting,
but this is only an entrance policy. What is the default exit policy then?
Is it the same as the ExitPolicy setting? And do the ExitNodes,
I take issue with the premise that the only course of action that ISPs
have is to disconnect customers that generate these complaints. I know
that some ISPs simply pass on the complaints to their customers with the
expectation that the customer fix the problem. It seems to me that this
is
I agree that it may be a risk for one organization to own a large number
of Tor nodes. But if that organization is a non-profit and run by some
of the Tor users, developers, and operators on this list, that should
reduce the risk that the organization will willingly compromise its Tor
Hi Mitar,
firstly, my linode server is hosting for my small sites, NOT for Tor
service. But because I use only about 30-40 GB per month for my sites, I
decided to give rest to Tor network. So your calculation is faulty - I pay
nothing to give 360 GB per month for Tor ;)
Although Im big Tor fan,
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Matthew McCabe mate...@mrmccabe.com wrote:
Also, you could setup an independent auditing system in which Tor experts
could examine the Tor boxes or VPSs to be sure that they are not
compromised.
But then ... who will watch the watchers?
Mitar
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:52 PM, slush sl...@slush.cz wrote:
Although Im big Tor fan, I think it is better idea to run Tor in unused
bandwith (like me) on plenty of computers rather than pay together few big
centralized servers (like you offer). Firstly, using unused bandwidth is for
free.
On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 22:03 +0100, Mitar wrote:
But on the other hand I am seeing many e-mails like I would like to
contribute to Tor but my ISP/university/mom does not allow me/has
blocked me/does not want to hassle. So maybe those could cooperate in
a way of putting together such nodes.
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Ted Smith ted...@gmail.com wrote:
TorProject has a paypal donations account that people (like those people
who cannot run a node, but wish to contribute) can send donations to.
Those donations, in turn, are requested by node operators who run
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 00:29 +0100, Mitar wrote:
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Ted Smith ted...@gmail.com wrote:
TorProject has a paypal donations account that people (like those people
who cannot run a node, but wish to contribute) can send donations to.
Those donations, in turn,
Hi!
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Ted Smith ted...@gmail.com wrote:
Why put one node online when you could put hundreds online, by creating
enough incentive to balance the potential risk of ISP complaints?
I do not see those two ideas excluding each other. :-)
So yes, such field in metadata
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 02:07 +0100, Mitar wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Ted Smith ted...@gmail.com wrote:
Why put one node online when you could put hundreds online, by creating
enough incentive to balance the potential risk of ISP complaints?
I do not see those two ideas
Hi everyone,
Please do not give money to node operators. This will complicate matters
and bring in the wrong people. I support sharing costs for a node in a
small group of people, but don't make it a way to receive money from
anyone - there will be people who abuse it.
It might also have legal
13 matches
Mail list logo
