On 30.04.09 00:24, Tripple Moon wrote:
> Yes I agree that those other factors, which were not mentioned yet, are
> ofcourse also elements to take into account for differences. And like i
> previously already admitted this is a difficult topic to make foolproof.
Actually you don't come with any co
Tripple Moon wrote:
> IMHO, all and i mean *all* modifications of the original code and/or design
> should be committed to the development-tree, that's how things get improved
> and fixed etc by the community that maintains the development of the project.
The problem with your logic (leaving as
--- On Wed, 4/29/09, Dominik Schaefer wrote:
> From: Dominik Schaefer
> Subject: Re: Version checking (was Re: 25 tbreg relays in directory)
> To: or-talk@freehaven.net
> Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 7:18 AM
> On 29.04.09 12:33, Tripple Moon wrote:
> >> Also what wo
Nils Vogels wrote:
> IMHO, just adding a list of allowed versions in the consensus will
> accomplish just that, without the need of all that extra traffic and
> CRC complexity.
Use as much donated network capacity as possible without reducing
anonymity by treating exit nodes and other nodes diffe
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Tripple Moon
wrote:
>--- On Wed, 4/29/09, Scott Bennett wrote:
>[cut]
>> >All of the above can be waifed void, when those
>> versions are announced on the mailing list.
>>
>> "Waifed"? What language are you borrowing
>> that from? And what doe
On 29.04.09 12:33, Tripple Moon wrote:
>> Also what would be gained from a CRC based on the *binary*?
>> Wouldn't that change according to the system that compiled it?
> Yes it *will* chance depending on the compiled (source-)version and
> architecture and compiler used.
> But those variables are
Tripple Moon (29.04.2009 17:33):
>> And if somebody wanted to circumvent, I would think the
>> client could be
>> modified so that when it claimed to be uploading itself, it
>> was actually
>> uploading a copy of an unmodified binary. Am I missing
>> something?
> Well yea thats upto the implementa
--- On Wed, 4/29/09, Scott Bennett wrote:
[cut]
> >All of the above can be waifed void, when those
> versions are announced on the mailing list.
>
> "Waifed"? What language are you borrowing
> that from? And what does
> it mean? "Waif" in English is a noun having a
> meaning that bears n
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Tripple Moon
wrote:
>first off, please only reply to the mailing-list address otherwise ppl like me
>are getting your messages double, just like you will get now...
>
My apologies. You did request that before, and I simply forgot.
It is accepted
--- On Tue, 4/28/09, Ted Smith wrote:
> From: Ted Smith
> Subject: Re: Version checking (was Re: 25 tbreg relays in directory)
> To: or-talk@freehaven.net
> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 10:51 PM
> On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 03:01 -0700, Tripple Moon wrote:
> > --- O
--- On Tue, 4/28/09, Jim McClanahan wrote:
> From: Jim McClanahan
> Subject: Re: Version checking (was Re: 25 tbreg relays in directory)
> To: or-talk@freehaven.net
> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 12:01 PM
> > By "remotely calculated CRC-value of the
> client"
On 4/29/09, Tripple Moon wrote:
>
> > >IMHO, this kind of "login procedure to enter the tor-network"
> > >will make it more secure and manageable.
> >
> > More secure and manageable for whom?? Big Brother?
> > Obviously not for
> > the supposedly anonymous tor user...jeesh.
>
> Ofcourse not
first off, please only reply to the mailing-list address otherwise ppl like me
are getting your messages double, just like you will get now...
--- On Tue, 4/28/09, Scott Bennett wrote:
[cut for clarity]
> Laying aside for the moment the matter of how the rest
> of the tor nodes
> should d
On Tue, 2009-04-28 at 03:01 -0700, Tripple Moon wrote:
> --- On Tue, 4/28/09, Scott Bennett wrote:
>
> > From: Scott Bennett > Subject: Re: 25 tbreg
> relays in directory > To: or-talk@freehaven.net > Date: Tuesday, April
> 28, 2009, 12:57 AM [cut for clarity] > That brings up something
>
> By "remotely calculated CRC-value of the client" i mean that the
destination does the CRC calculation of the connecting client.
> Yes this means the client needs to send all of its binary-self to the
> destination.
That would be a pretty big upload for a dial-up user!
I am also wondering what
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Tripple Moon
wrote:
>--- On Tue, 4/28/09, Scott Bennett wrote:
>
>> From: Scott Bennett
>> Subject: Re: 25 tbreg relays in directory
>> To: or-talk@freehaven.net
>> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 12:57 AM
>[cut for clarity]
>> That brings up som
--- On Tue, 4/28/09, Scott Bennett wrote:
> From: Scott Bennett
> Subject: Re: 25 tbreg relays in directory
> To: or-talk@freehaven.net
> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 12:57 AM
[cut for clarity]
> That brings up something that has bothered me for a
> long time. When
> tor discovers that
17 matches
Mail list logo
