Scott Bennett wrote:
While port 587 is the official standard port for email submission, it
doesn't *require* the usage of SSL. GMail does however have this
requirement.
Also, I'd still personally prefer to use port 465 over port 587 for mail
submission when both are available, purely because
Scott Bennett wrote:
The standardised port for SMTP submission is 587. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol specifically
"Although some servers support port 465 for legacy secure SMTP in
violation of the specifications"
Huh. Guess I'll have to look it up somew
Scott Bennett wrote:
Can I get some feedback regarding the deployment of an exit node
restricted to port 443?
My rationale is fairly simple, I believe in free speech and want to help
make it available to everyone, especially those whose governments
criminalize certain kinds of speech. I am a
defcon wrote:
whatever you do, while in gmail dont exit gmail without logging off,
if you simply go to any non-ssl google site your cookie will be
exposed ፡(
These repeated discussions about gmail and ssl make me wary of ever
using their webmail service, or for that matter any other webmail
Nick Mathewson wrote:
On the other hand, if your only goal is to block anonymous SMTP, and
you agree that blocking all Tor servers is very overreaching, you
might instead try looking at the more targetted DNSEL service
available at
http://exitlist.torproject.org/
It lets you block _exactly_ t
Mark Manning wrote:
That's awesome! That's exactly how I was thinking but to be honest I
wasn't sure how to implement the background service that ties the query
logs to the web server.
If it wouldn't take too long, do you think you could talk about the
specifics a little bit more?
1.) You
Mark Manning wrote:
Hello - I'm just starting to pay attention to this mailing list so
forgive me if this subject has been brought up before.
I'm interested in setting up a [or using an existing] service that could
test for a proper DNS configuration [among other things]. The goal
being that
Mark Manning wrote:
Hello - I'm just starting to pay attention to this mailing list so
forgive me if this subject has been brought up before.
I'm interested in setting up a [or using an existing] service that could
test for a proper DNS configuration [among other things]. The goal
being that
Kyle Williams wrote:
This is just a theory, no hard facts to back it up.
When I'm messing around with Tor's ControlPort, I've noticed that my Tor
traffic just hangs until whatever I'm doing on the ControlPort stops.
There have been a couple of times where I do something very wrong on the
con
* on the Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 01:11:06PM +0100, Lexi Pimenidis wrote:
>> I disagree with that. There still has been no spam over Tor in the
>> scenario you described. Rather someone has logged into a system over
>> Tor and used _that_ system to send spam. I'm not saying Tor would not
>> have been
* on the Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:50:44PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> In case anyone's interested, I just installed the Tiger version of
>> Vidalia under Leopard and it works fine
> Was this the vidalia bundle? If so, great. Thanks for the confirmation
> it works.
It was the bundle yes.
Hi,
In case anyone's interested, I just installed the Tiger version of
Vidalia under Leopard and it works fine
Mike
Lexi Pimenidis wrote:
I don't see how this is any different than the "pwned" calls
We also don't see any technical chance to stop this. However we just
wanted to announce that at least the statement that there is no spam
over Tor is history...
If I write a web based application that sends ou
Michael Holstein wrote:
What exactly is happening? Somebody is using your Tor exit node to
access a website (yahoo mail) and using that to send spam? And this is
being traced back to you by the spam being traced back to Yahoo, and
Yahoo checking their webmail logs and finding your exit node's IP
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
You could set up a gmail account via tor. Then point a stunnel at
smtp.gmail.com port 465 over Tor using tsocks or something. Making sure
you have a copy of their public cert first and that the stunnel
validates it. I set this up and pointed my MTA (Exim) at it just for a
Florian Reitmeir wrote:
The better way(tm) to do this would be to just run an open SMTP server
as a hidden service, and run spam filtering, hashacash proof-of-work
challenge, whatever anti-abuse stuff you want, along with header
munging and striping, ... and advertise this server for people to s
Scott Bennett wrote:
1.) People that can perform these attacks if you just use a normal
Internet connection: Governments, people working for ISPs
...and anyone running a destination site being accessed with or
without tor, and anyone with a wireless card in a laptop in the same
public loc
Scott Bennett wrote:
If they use an Internet cafe, their traffic is subject to being
monitored. If they use Tor it is *also* subject to being modified.
If they go to a coffee shop or other location with free wireless
access, their traffic is also subject to being modified, but at *any
and
Scott Bennett wrote:
If you set up something like that you're opening up all sorts of attacks
against the people who use your service. If they don't know that all of
their plain text traffic can be read and modified by, "dodgy," exit
nodes, and almost certainly *will* be at some point...
Scott Bennett wrote:
I'm trying to set up a free wireless service for those of my neighbors
within range of a little wireless router I have. To keep things safe for
me and at least somewhat safer for them, I want to route all the outbound
connections from that router through tor using pf under
Peter Palfrader wrote:
Is there a maximum number of ExitPolicy entries you can have for a node?
Probably not, but remember that all the Tor clients will have to
download it, and all the Tor directory servers will have to serve it, so
it probably shouldn't be more than a dozen or so lines.
So
Hi,
Is there a maximum number of ExitPolicy entries you can have for a node?
Mike
Ringo Kamens wrote:
I'm using gmail which doesn't give me an option unless I'm using a pop3 client.
Comrade Ringo Kamens
When you hit reply. Your cursor is at the top of the message. There's
nothing stopping you moving the cursor down.
In fact, a quick google shows that if you're using Fire
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have heard of the "TCP over TCP" issue but have not had any bad
experiences so far. I am currently using both TCP and UDP-based VPN
systems and while the TCP-based one is a bit slower, it still seems
very stable for applications such as Terminal Services, FTP,
http(
Florian Reitmeir wrote:
>>> "Please don't do stuff like this."
>> Why not? I don't see any problem in validating/checking the behavior
>> or request/fingerprints of incoming connections to Tor, so long as it
>> doesn't break Tor (hence QA testing after R&D). Why would checking
>> input be a bad
* on the Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 01:10:01AM -0700, coderman wrote:
> On 8/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I have the same problem. 3 days of "not enough to build a circuit".
>> Server: Viking, WinXp Vidalia 0.0.13 Tor 0.2.0.4
>>
>> But right now Tor seems to work again...
On
http://wiki.noreply.org/noreply/TheOnionRouter/TorFAQ#ServerForFirewalledClients
one of the suggested methods to get your Directory service on port 80 if Apache
is
in the way is to use mod_proxy.
Personally I think sticking tors directory service behind Apache so it's
not exposed to the wider
* on the Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 04:12:21PM -0400, Ringo Kamens wrote:
> As you know, a major security vulnerability was just patched with the
> 0.1.2.16 release. I have been using the noreply.org deb packages but
> they didn't update to the newest version (at least not under amd64
> feisty). If you
Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
If I am right, wouldn't the majority of the tor user base be better
served if a collection of exit nodes only exited port 80 and 443
traffic?
Please add port 22 (ssh).
I think you sort of missed my point. I'm aware there are lots of
protocols and ports used on tor a
* on the Tue, May 01, 2007 at 11:33:30AM +0200, Karsten N. wrote:
>> Am I right in thinking that most people use Tor for web browsing, over
>> ports 80 and 443? And am I right in thinking that most of tors bandwidth
>> is used up by a minority of users, using services that require much
>> higher a
Hi,
Am I right in thinking that most people use Tor for web browsing, over
ports 80 and 443? And am I right in thinking that most of tors bandwidth
is used up by a minority of users, using services that require much
higher amounts of bandwidth, such as ptp traffic? These are just guesses,
but I c
"Tor exit node"...
Mike
* on the Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 03:53:31PM +0100, Tony wrote:
> SORBS lists TOR servers as being SPAM related. Which is rather unlikely to be
> the case.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony.
>
>
>
>
Sorbs have *many* different lists. They do not just list sources of spam,
and nor do they claim to. See http://www.au.sorbs.net/using.shtml
If someone ignorantly decides to start blocking mail or http requests
based on an IP being listed on the aggregate of all sorbs zones, ie
dnsbl.sorbs.net then
* on the Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 02:06:57PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>> As a directory mirror, current requests for the mirror data cause about
>> 2.7MB of data transfer. If the data could be delivered compressed with
>> gzip that could significantly reduce the transfered data...
> Agreed. Tha
* on the Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 05:01:10PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> [snip]
>> BandwidthRate 64KB
>> BandwidthBurst 64KB
>> MaxAdvertisedBandwidth 64KB
> [snip]
>> With the bandwidth limits set as they are, why is tor using up nearly
>> 1 Megabit per second? I thought it mig
I've been looking into how to use this with Exim4. I just thought I'd
share it here for the benefit of the archives.
warn dnslists=
$interface_port.${sg{$interface_address}{\N^(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)\.(\d+)$\N}{\$4\.\$3\.\$2\.\$1}}.ip-port.torhosts.nighteffect.us
log_message = This connectio
* on the Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:49:39AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : Where 'debian-tor' is the user my tor process runs as, and
> : 85.234.136.20 is the IP I want all tor outgoing connections to appear
> : from.
> :
> : My question is. Is this a waste of time? Does tor already originate
>
Hi,
My server has many IP addresses. I was paranoid that even though I set
"Address" in my configuration, outgoing connections might originate from
one of the other IP 's on the server. So to combat this I use the
following iptables rule:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s ! 85.234.136.20 -m owner
As a directory mirror, current requests for the mirror data cause about
2.7MB of data transfer. If the data could be delivered compressed with
gzip that could significantly reduce the transfered data...
The main benefit of this being more bandwidth available for routing
instead of directory transf
Hi,
I'm running a tor server called 'Grepular'. At the moment it's a
"partial" exit node in that it only exits a few specific ports. It's
also a directory mirror. I'm running version 0.1.2.13, with this
config:
SocksPort 9050
SocksListenAddress 0.0.0.0
RunAsDaemon 1
DataDirectory /var/li
Roger Dingledine wrote:
Yes, you're absolutely right. Oops. Thanks for pointing it out.
*snip option two*
Just a reminder as it's been a few weeks since this discussion. The
"bad" hidden service instructions are still up in the online
documentation. I left option one above as I think that sho
Roger Dingledine wrote:
Wont that give google a map of Real IP -> Hidden service name?
Yes, you're absolutely right. Oops. Thanks for pointing it out.
I originally split the setup instructions into two steps because
people had a lot of trouble distinguishing whether they had screwed up
editing
xiando wrote:
I read an article from LH this morning about the OpenDNS service.
http://tinyurl.com/24y2cn
http://www.opendns.com/
Can I use this with Tor? Will that void any anonymity provided by Tor?
Forgive me if this is a stupid question.
>
I call SCAM. Yes. SCAM, I tell you. This isn't re
* on the Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 07:30:26PM +0200, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>> Further to this, there is still a problem even if you *do* change the
>> onion address after doing the test. The fact that google can see that
>> someone was testing setting up a hidden tor service from a particular IP
>> on
* on the Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 05:49:53PM +0100, Mike Cardwell wrote:
> That's exactly the way I should have described the issue in my original
> post. I didn't think I'd need to spell it out in so much detail. :)
>
> If you assume that everyone that has set up a hi
* on the Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:38:47AM -0500, Drake Wilson wrote:
> By my understanding, here's the chain of reasoning and action:
>
> 1. Someone sets up a foobarbazqux.onion hidden service with the example
> given. They type in http://foobarbazqux.onion/ to see whether it works.
> 2.
In the documentation it tells you to set up an example hidden service
pointing at google.com, eg:
HiddenServicePort 80 www.google.com:80
I've just started looking at hidden services so I'm not exactly sure how
they work yet, but if I'm correct, by setting that up and testing it
surely you'll be c
* on the Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 09:45:20AM -0800, Michael_google gmail_Gersten
wrote:
>> Nope .. 587 is an alternative to 25. Unlike the other two, it's not
>> encrypted.
> Whoops! I've taken that one off my list of ports then.
I'm not sure what was suggested is actually correct. Port 25 is for SM
48 matches
Mail list logo
