Hope this doesn't rankle anyone's last nerve but I found this on the Onion
Forum last night and am wondering how to verify it?
I can just ask here, "does anyone know if this is true or not and what it might
mean to someone's anonymity regarding Tor, and the clients trust of Tor?
I suppose thi
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:18:17AM -0500, zzzjethro...@email2me.net wrote:
> Here it is: The last two versions of TOR have not been documented,
>thus cannot be trusted. Versions 0.2.1.22 and 0.2.1.21 are the only ones
>that can be trusted (possibly only 0.2.1.21).
> Someone want to check or point m
> Someone want to check or point me in the right direction and I will
>attempt to find out.
When you refer to some onionforum thread - why dont you read the whole
thread?
> It seems this "onion forum" thing is full of misinformation, conspiracy
> theories, and uninformed people. What a deal. :)
: Tor documentation
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:18:17AM -0500, zzzjethro...@email2me.net wrote:
Here it is: The last two versions of TOR have not been documented,
thus cannot be trusted. Versions 0.2.1.22 and 0.2.1.21 are the only ones
that can be trusted (possibly only 0.2.1.21).
Someone want to
hi.
Perhaps you are right. I don't think I did read the entire thread and this is a
trial-and-error method of learning for me.
Regards.
-Original Message-
From: Marcin Kowalczyk
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Sent: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 3:24 pm
Subject: Re: Tor documentation
>
On 03/03/2010 12:18 AM, zzzjethro...@email2me.net wrote:
> Hope this doesn't rankle anyone's last nerve but I found this on the
> Onion Forum last night and am wondering how to verify it? I can just
> ask here, "does anyone know if this is true or not and what it might
> mean to someone's anonymity
6 matches
Mail list logo
