Egg --> My face
Well done, guys.
R
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
> On 02/20/2010 04:41 PM, Rich Jones wrote:
>> While we're discussing the bundle, I'd like to mention something
>> that's been on my mind lately. I recently ran a Privacy Tech Workshop
>> at the Students for
On 02/20/2010 04:41 PM, Rich Jones wrote:
> While we're discussing the bundle, I'd like to mention something
> that's been on my mind lately. I recently ran a Privacy Tech Workshop
> at the Students for Free Culture conference in DC - and the general
> conclusion is that Tor/FF is too hard to use a
Dealing with Chromium devs on incognito integratio is a great idea.
While we're discussing the bundle, I'd like to mention something
that's been on my mind lately. I recently ran a Privacy Tech Workshop
at the Students for Free Culture conference in DC - and the general
conclusion is that Tor/FF i
On 02/20/2010 03:58 PM, Marco Bonetti wrote:
> Andrew Lewman wrote:
>> Chrisd even wrote Mozilla a patch and submitted it on the bug.
> cool, do you apply the patch to windows tor bundles? if not, it could be
> worth to be applied :)
No, we don't build our own Firefox yet. I've been resisting add
On 02/20/2010 12:38 PM, Flamsmark wrote:
>> Once Firefox fixes bug 280661, we don't need a http proxy at all.
>> However, given the current pace of progress on 280661, we may switch to
>> Chrome before the fix occurs.
> If the switch to Chrome was made, I assume that there'd be a port of the
> TorB
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Lewman wrote:
> Chrisd even wrote Mozilla a patch and submitted it on the bug.
cool, do you apply the patch to windows tor bundles? if not, it could be
worth to be applied :)
on the other side, I've mixed feelings regarding the possible switch
f
On 02/20/2010 03:36 AM, zzzjethro...@email2me.net wrote:
> How does one, or rather I, do this switch on my Mac 10.5.2 ppc?
> Thanks and should I?
Should you switch? I cannot answer that.
How to switch? I can answer that at a high-level.
Install privoxy from http://www.privoxy.org/, reconfigur
On 19 February 2010 20:32, Andrew Lewman wrote:
> Once Firefox fixes bug 280661, we don't need a http proxy at all.
> However, given the current pace of progress on 280661, we may switch to
> Chrome before the fix occurs.
>
If the switch to Chrome was made, I assume that there'd be a port of the
Thank you Andrew for the nice explication!
2010/2/19 Andrew Lewman
> On 02/15/2010 12:09 PM, Michael Gomboc wrote:
> > Why is polipo used and no longer privoxy?
>
> The first question is, "why a http proxy at all?"
>
> The answer is, because Firefox SOCKS layer has hard-coded timeouts, and
> ot
How does one, or rather I, do this switch on my Mac 10.5.2 ppc?
Thanks and should I?
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Lewman
To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Sent: Sat, Feb 20, 2010 8:32 am
Subject: Re: why polipo?
On 02/15/2010 12:09 PM, Michael Gomboc wrote:
> Why is polipo u
On 02/15/2010 12:09 PM, Michael Gomboc wrote:
> Why is polipo used and no longer privoxy?
The first question is, "why a http proxy at all?"
The answer is, because Firefox SOCKS layer has hard-coded timeouts, and
other issues, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=280661.
Personally, I don'
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Michael Gomboc
wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> Why is polipo used and no longer privoxy?
> Could someone point me in the right direction.
This might answer your question:
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/investigating-http-proxy-performance-tor
--
Runa Sandvik
Hi,
Why is polipo used and no longer privoxy?
Could someone point me in the right direction.
Thanx
--
Michael Gomboc
pgp-id: 0x5D41FDF8
13 matches
Mail list logo
