On 01/07/2015 08:20 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 04:45:46PM +0000, Tony Finch wrote: >> I don't think that is true. You can use ssh or http or smtp or imap or any >> TCP application over Tor, and you can use the GNS to resolve A and AAAA >> records to use for any purpose too. > > Christian Grothoff was arguing up-thread that that isn't quite true.
I am not sure which sentence you are referring to, but if it was understood like that I'm sorr and I should have been more precise. Of course one can run various TCP-based protocols over Tor. For example, Pond uses URLs like pondserver://FJPZWT4E6Y3BOYYXSLJII4EMZPFCU7CDL7DM3AZ4V65X4TGDKN6A@aj642zdpke4dzgf3.onion My point was more that Tor's ".onion" only refers to some TCP endpoint, while .bit and GNS are more generic as you can store 'arbitrary' records in the name system. Also, using Tor only makes sense if the application you are tunneling is written to protect your privacy/anonymity, while .bit and GNS do not imply such restrictions. > I understood him to mean that what you're really doing with those > other protocols is tunneling them inside Tor. I guess I can see an > argument that we don't use such scheme identifiers for other tunnels, > so we wouldn't in this case either. Right, that argument is certainly fair.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
