When I restarted my tor server a while ago. it surprised me with Jan 26 04:25:08.406 [notice] This version of Tor (0.2.0.17-alpha) is newer than any recommended version, according to the directory authorities. Recommended versions are: 0.1.2.19,0.2.0.11-alpha,0.2.0.12-alpha,0.2.0.15-alpha
So I peeked at the cached-consensus file and the cached-status/* files. The cached-consensus file contained client-versions 0.1.2.17,0.1.2.18,0.1.2.19,0.2.0.6-alpha,0.2.0.7-alpha,0.2.0.8-alpha,0.2.0.9-alpha,0.2.0.11-alpha,0.2.0.12-alpha,0.2.0.13-alpha,0.2.0.14-alpha,0.2.0.15-alpha,0.2.0.17-alpha So far, so good, but then it had server-versions 0.1.2.19,0.2.0.11-alpha,0.2.0.12-alpha,0.2.0.15-alpha So what's the deal with 0.2.0.16-alpha and 0.2.0.17-alpha not being recommended as servers? The cacned-status/* files also contained some oddities. Some had only two copies of the authority's IP address instead of a host+domainname followed by an IP address. One of them was for lefkada.eecs.harvard.edu, whose cached-status file offered neither client-versions nor server-versions, even though the cached-consensus file said it had come from this server and did offer its not necessarily correct opinion of both. The cached-status file for tor.dizum.com also offered neither client-versions nor server-versions. The other authorities offered reasonable client-versions and server-versions. Would the people running the authorities please get this straightened out ASAP? It seems like a bad idea to have them in such disagreement. Thanks much! Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************