Re: xB Mail: Anonymous Email Client
It's appropriate to repeat it because you're spamming this list again with your ideas about licensing. You continue your attempts to ride on the coat tales of the Free Software and Open Source licenses that came before you. Jacob, I'm not spamming the list with licensing ideas. I commented that the idea contributions would be used in a software licensed under TESLA, as that is a legitimate caveat for those here, as expressed before. Your further illustration is a testament to the legitimacy of that caveat. *The TESLA software license is neither 'open source' or 'free'/'free software' as people commonly understand those terms.* As people commonly understand those terms, I disagree. For the 99.% of the users out there, it is free and open source. They don't hit any restriction. Download it, modify it, sell it, redistribute it modified or unmodified. That .0001% that apparently some people feel outraged over, only represents the addition of backdoors/spyware, or commercial theft. Stop misusing those terms and people will stop calling you on it. It's a factual debate and the facts aren't on your side. Shall I say it again? While we can all love Richard Stallman, your choice of definition is not universal. That the software is open source and free, is dependent on your purpose being non-malicious. I'll clarify, as per your reply: FOSS definitions != fact. They are colloquial, they are subjective terms. warning: spam licensing idea ahead, involves gpl... We could license it under GPL, but wrap that in a license / software that says you can't get to the GPL license if you have malicious intent (possible?). It just seems easier to use a single license. To be clear, your xB* software doesn't belong on or-talk because it has next to nothing to do with Tor. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but there are both security and anonymity implications for passing mail over tor that should be discussed. And if you haven't understood it yet, we are indeed talking about passing mail over tor, because that is exactly what the software will do, presumably. That is what _I_ want to discuss. My only caveat is telling contributors how I plan to use the information they share. I don't want people to be angry that I used information or methods in a way that wasn't suitable to them. That seems like a pretty straight forward issue. For some reason, Seth thought my disclosure of use required comment, in the interests of malware producers who might be contributing in the hopes of introducing malware/spyware. Reductio ad absurdum, that is the logical conclusion to the objection, if it isn't purely for attempting to open discourse about subjective terms. Maybe I should think of Seth's post as less of an objection and more like a wikipedia stub, but then again that isn't how he phrased it so I'll take the comments as they come. If you configure a mail client to use Tor, no one else needs to know about it. I remember your same posts about incoginto, tor browser, torpedo, vidalia, torbutton, janusvm, rockate, etc. You're right. Discussion about software projects that implement tor don't belong in or-talk. Sure. How am I supposed to take your comments seriously, Jacob? That lack of evidence doesn't seem to bloster that claim as your motive. Maybe you're just a very easy-going guy and decided here is where you would make your stand for disallowing discussion on or-talk of software that integrates tor, and things that aren't purely about tor project itself. Or maybe you're right, and your post doesn't belong on or-talk, and perhaps neither does this one. In that case, may I suggest that if you have a response, you send it to me personally? I wouldn't want to force you or anyone else to violate your self-proclaimed definition of what belongs on or-talk, after all. At some point you have to step back, abandon the ivory tower, and realize that your definitions are not the only definitions, and if they were that still doesn't elevate them into fact. Your position requires that contention, and is thus untenable. That you've called attention to it in some attempt to extricate Seth is admirable. However, at the end of the day I'm here to discuss the implications of sending mail over tor so I can produce actual software that real people can use, and you're here for some reason other than that. Pardon me if I don't allow you to undermine my purpose. Arrakis
Re: xB Mail: Anonymous Email Client
Arrakis wrote: It's appropriate to repeat it because you're spamming this list again with your ideas about licensing. You continue your attempts to ride on the coat tales of the Free Software and Open Source licenses that came before you. Jacob, I'm not spamming the list with licensing ideas. I commented that the idea contributions would be used in a software licensed under TESLA, as that is a legitimate caveat for those here, as expressed before. Your further illustration is a testament to the legitimacy of that caveat. Sigh. Actually that's just what you did when you replied to Seth and that's just what you're doing in the paragraphs below. Stop wasting our time debating the meaning of specific software licensing terms. *The TESLA software license is neither 'open source' or 'free'/'free software' as people commonly understand those terms.* As people commonly understand those terms, I disagree. For the 99.% of the users out there, it is free and open source. They don't hit any restriction. Download it, modify it, sell it, redistribute it modified or unmodified. That .0001% that apparently some people feel outraged over, only represents the addition of backdoors/spyware, or commercial theft. It would be reasonable to say that many people don't understand software licensing. You are clearly one of those people. Please consider learning about Free and Open Source software licensing ideas: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://opensource.org/docs/osd These are the definitions used by people who write software on this list. You seem to be the exception as far as I've read. Stop misusing those terms and people will stop calling you on it. It's a factual debate and the facts aren't on your side. Shall I say it again? While we can all love Richard Stallman, your choice of definition is not universal. That the software is open source and free, is dependent on your purpose being non-malicious. I'll clarify, as per your reply: FOSS definitions != fact. They are colloquial, they are subjective terms. Sigh. It's depressing to watch you beat your head against the wall here. That you restrict your users pretty much means that your software isn't Open Source or Free Software. warning: spam licensing idea ahead, involves gpl... We could license it under GPL, but wrap that in a license / software that says you can't get to the GPL license if you have malicious intent (possible?). It just seems easier to use a single license. I don't have any real comment about this. It's immaterial to the discussion as far as I can tell. I don't want to discuss creation of software licenses. To be clear, your xB* software doesn't belong on or-talk because it has next to nothing to do with Tor. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but there are both security and anonymity implications for passing mail over tor that should be discussed. And if you haven't understood it yet, we are indeed talking about passing mail over tor, because that is exactly what the software will do, presumably. Of course I'm aware that there are both security and anonymity implications for sending email over Tor. As far as I can tell, you haven't decided if you want to use Tor or Mixmaster. It seems like you should probably do some high level design on your own software and then ask for advice. Which of course seems weird to say because it sounds like you were so close to being finished with it... That is what _I_ want to discuss. My only caveat is telling contributors how I plan to use the information they share. I don't want people to be angry that I used information or methods in a way that wasn't suitable to them. That seems like a pretty straight forward issue. For some reason, Seth thought my disclosure of use required comment, in the interests of malware producers who might be contributing in the hopes of introducing malware/spyware. Reductio ad absurdum, that is the logical conclusion to the objection, if it isn't purely for attempting to open discourse about subjective terms. Maybe I should think of Seth's post as less of an objection and more like a wikipedia stub, but then again that isn't how he phrased it so I'll take the comments as they come. Huh. Ok. If you configure a mail client to use Tor, no one else needs to know about it. I remember your same posts about incoginto, tor browser, torpedo, vidalia, torbutton, janusvm, rockate, etc. You're right. Discussion about software projects that implement tor don't belong in or-talk. Sure. How am I supposed to take your comments seriously, Jacob? That lack of evidence doesn't seem to bloster that claim as your motive. Maybe you're just a very easy-going guy and decided here is where you would make your stand for disallowing discussion on or-talk of software that integrates tor, and things that aren't purely about tor project itself. In your email you indicated that you weren't
Re: Couple more questions
I set it up through 8118 and it connected through TOR and Privoxy. Should i keep it this way or use SOCKS? Any replies to my other questions? On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Sven Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am 21.08.2008 um 07:58 schrieb M: Hey guys, a few more questions for the experts: 1) I noticed that the Tor-IM-Browser package uses GAIM, routed through SOCKS 5:9050. If I am using GAIM with TOR/Privoxy, should i set Gaim to use SOCKS 5:9050 or, or HTTP 127.0.0.1:8118 and routing it through privoxy? No, Privoxy is an HTTP-Proxy AFAIK. GAIM uses XMPP (Jabber) as protocol, so Privoxy can probably not handle it. But if GAIM is not a patched version, I fear that there are many possible information leaks. For example when triggering a file transfer, the real IP address might be disclosed. Sven -- http://sven.anderson.deBelieve those who are seeking the truth. tel:+49-551-9969285 Doubt those who find it. mobile: +49-179-4939223 (André Gide)
Re: Couple more questions
Sorry I'm actually using the new version of GAIM which is Pidgin On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:55 AM, M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I set it up through 8118 and it connected through TOR and Privoxy. Should i keep it this way or use SOCKS? Any replies to my other questions? On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Sven Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am 21.08.2008 um 07:58 schrieb M: Hey guys, a few more questions for the experts: 1) I noticed that the Tor-IM-Browser package uses GAIM, routed through SOCKS 5:9050. If I am using GAIM with TOR/Privoxy, should i set Gaim to use SOCKS 5:9050 or, or HTTP 127.0.0.1:8118 and routing it through privoxy? No, Privoxy is an HTTP-Proxy AFAIK. GAIM uses XMPP (Jabber) as protocol, so Privoxy can probably not handle it. But if GAIM is not a patched version, I fear that there are many possible information leaks. For example when triggering a file transfer, the real IP address might be disclosed. Sven -- http://sven.anderson.deBelieve those who are seeking the truth. tel:+49-551-9969285 Doubt those who find it. mobile: +49-179-4939223 (André Gide)
Re: Couple more questions
Am 21.08.2008 um 10:55 schrieb M: I set it up through 8118 and it connected through TOR and Privoxy. Should i keep it this way or use SOCKS? I guess you are using TLS connections? Then it doesn't matter anyways. -- http://sven.anderson.deBelieve those who are seeking the truth. tel:+49-551-9969285 Doubt those who find it. mobile: +49-179-4939223 (André Gide)
Re: Couple more questions
Sorry I'm not that computer literate. I have heard of TLS, but i have no idea whether i am using it or not. On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Sven Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am 21.08.2008 um 10:55 schrieb M: I set it up through 8118 and it connected through TOR and Privoxy. Should i keep it this way or use SOCKS? I guess you are using TLS connections? Then it doesn't matter anyways. -- http://sven.anderson.deBelieve those who are seeking the truth. tel:+49-551-9969285 Doubt those who find it. mobile: +49-179-4939223 (André Gide)
Re: [OT] Off-topic posts
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:12:32PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 0.6K bytes in 22 lines about: : Tor-related are marked with [OT] in the subject. I think this is the : least we can do for those who are just interested in the Tor stuff, so : they can filter/skip those mails. I vote for just kicking people off the list. While this may feed into their fascism/censorship fantasies, dropping the signal to noise ratio doesn't help anyone search the archives nor get their questions answered. Kicked people are welcome to rejoin so long as they can keep their posts relevant to technical details of tor, onion routing research, and subsequent discussions. There are plenty of places, that are not here, to discuss the global cabal, licensing facts and opinions, mail user agent etiquette, and future alien overlords from the Crab Nebula. If you can't find these places, start with usenet. My $0.02; not that of the Tor Project. -- Andrew
Re: [OT] Off-topic posts
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:12:32PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 0.6K bytes in 22 lines about: : Tor-related are marked with [OT] in the subject. I think this is the : least we can do for those who are just interested in the Tor stuff, so : they can filter/skip those mails. I vote for just kicking people off the list. While this may feed into their fascism/censorship fantasies, dropping the signal to noise ratio doesn't help anyone search the archives nor get their questions answered. Kicked people are welcome to rejoin so long as they can keep their posts relevant to technical details of tor, onion routing research, and subsequent discussions. There are plenty of places, that are not here, to discuss the global cabal, licensing facts and opinions, mail user agent etiquette, and future alien overlords from the Crab Nebula. If you can't find these places, start with usenet. My $0.02; not that of the Tor Project. -- Andrew I agree. The noise on this mailing list is making my eyes bleed when I want to know what is going on with Tor. To be honest, I haven't read much of the mailing list since for the last couple weeks because of all the noise. We I open an e-mail from the Tor mailing list, I expect it to be about Tor or Tor related technologies, not 9/11 conspiracies. I say ask them politely to stop, if not, kick'em off. - Kyle
Re: Vidalia exit-country
Camilo Viecco wrote: 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote: What a great idea! Thank you for working on this!! And thanks to Google for supporting this project. Sadly, I get a clean linux compilation, but no extra tab. Is there an additional dependency? e.g. geoip? TIA gcc-3.4.6, glibc-2.6.1 There are no other dependencies expect a recent version of tor. Maybe is a terminology issue. Check if on the 'settings' page you find a button named 'Node Policy'. If you find it click on it and enable 'Enable Vidalia Relay Policy Management', then enable 'Strict Exit Relay Management' You should be set. Let me know of you have more problems Camilo Thanks for replying! Still no success. I tried both the posted source, and the svn. Could there be some outdated source code at both places? The top line of the changelog looks like this; no mention of exit-country: 0.1.8 xx-xxx-2008 o Reduce the default number of messages to retain in the message log to 50 messages. Most people never look at the window and the extra 200 messages just needlessly eat memory. 0.1.7 02-Aug-2008 o Handle spaces in the Tor version number we get from 'getinfo version' since Tor has included svn revision numbers in its response (e.g. 0.2.0.30 (r12345)) for a while now. TIA
