On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 08:50:00PM +0200, bacardic...@gmail.com wrote 1.1K
bytes in 28 lines about:
: Would it be possible for my to include myself in the MyFamily line?
Yes. When I ran 10 nodes, this is what I did. One config for all 10
was easier to maintain than 10 unique configs.
--
And
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:44:36PM -0500, benn...@cs.niu.edu wrote 4.7K bytes
in 91 lines about:
: including some tor developers, did not bother to read the proposal by Bruce
: from perfect-privacy.com. He did *not* propose, for example, any equivalent
: to #include statements. He did *not* prop
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 02:36:01PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:12:38 -0400 Paul Syverson
> wrote:
> >
> >Your interpretation of what Bruce said makes sense. But it is not
> >how I parsed, "BelongToFamily xyz" in his message. I read it the same
> >way it see
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:12:38 -0400 Paul Syverson
wrote:
>On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:44:36PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
>> Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious! I go to sleep for a few hours, and the
>> discussion descends into total confusion because a number of participants,
>> incl
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:44:36PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:
> Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious! I go to sleep for a few hours, and the
> discussion descends into total confusion because a number of participants,
> including some tor developers, did not bother to read the proposal by Bruce
> f
Hey Andrew,
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 13:44, wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:31:47PM +0200, t...@wiredwings.com wrote 0.9K
> bytes in 19 lines about:
> : >From what I understand, yes, at the moment both "partners" have to list
> : each other. That's what the fuss is all about, because this be
Oh. My. Goodness. Gracious! I go to sleep for a few hours, and the
discussion descends into total confusion because a number of participants,
including some tor developers, did not bother to read the proposal by Bruce
from perfect-privacy.com. He did *not* propose, for example, any equiva
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Moritz Bartl wrote:
> On 20.05.2010 13:28, Oguz wrote:
>> I too do not understand this. Already an evil entry node can list all
>> nodes that it does _not_ control in its family option to try to force
>> circuit through the nodes it controls, though it would obviou
On Thursday May 20 2010 09:39:00 Flamsmark wrote:
> On 20 May 2010 07:44, wrote:
> > If Mallory lists Alice
> > and Bob, but neither Alice nor Bob list Mallory, it's not a valid
> > Family. Otherwise, Mallory could list every node in the network and
> > screw everyone.
>
> Why would this screw e
On May 20, 2010, at 08:39 AM, Flamsmark wrote:
> On 20 May 2010 07:44, wrote:
> If Mallory lists Alice
> and Bob, but neither Alice nor Bob list Mallory, it's not a valid
> Family. Otherwise, Mallory could list every node in the network and
> screw everyone.
>
> Why would this screw everyone?
On 20 May 2010 07:44, wrote:
> If Mallory lists Alice
> and Bob, but neither Alice nor Bob list Mallory, it's not a valid
> Family. Otherwise, Mallory could list every node in the network and
> screw everyone.
Why would this screw everyone? I admit that I don't fully understand how
families ar
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 07:44:51AM -0400, and...@torproject.org wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:31:47PM +0200, t...@wiredwings.com wrote 0.9K
> bytes in 19 lines about:
> : >From what I understand, yes, at the moment both "partners" have to list
> : each other. That's what the fuss is all abou
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 01:31:47PM +0200, t...@wiredwings.com wrote 0.9K bytes
in 19 lines about:
: >From what I understand, yes, at the moment both "partners" have to list
: each other. That's what the fuss is all about, because this becomes hard
: to manage when you run a lot of nodes.
Yes, thi
On 20.05.2010 13:28, Oguz wrote:
> I too do not understand this. Already an evil entry node can list all
> nodes that it does _not_ control in its family option to try to force
> circuit through the nodes it controls, though it would obviously be a
> dead give away listing many unrelated nodes as w
14 matches
Mail list logo
