Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 274: A Name System API for Tor Onion Services

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:31 AM, George Kadianakis wrote: > What do you mean by "develop an IPv6 layer"? prop224 destroys the one to one bidirectional binary mapping that makes onioncat possible, and fails to provide a replacement for it :-( Any "human naming" layer

[tor-dev] Release: sandboxed-tor-browser-0.0.3

Hello, I just tagged sandboxed-tor-browser 0.0.3. Binaries will be built when the next Tor Browser build happens (soon). The dependencies (both build and runtime) have changed, end users should install `libnotify` in the unlikely event that it is not already present, though basic functionality

Re: [tor-dev] archive.is and archive.fo are using CloudFlare. Is the TorBrowser add-on cfc useless now?

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:15:05 +0100 Christian Pietsch wrote: > Considering that cfc was created in order to evade the CloudFlare > captcha, this is quite a disappointment. Is cfc useless now? Can it be > fixed? It was a proof of concept that I no longer have

[tor-dev] archive.is and archive.fo are using CloudFlare. Is the TorBrowser add-on cfc useless now?

Hi Yawning, hi all, sorry if this is old news, but I just noticed that archive.is not only redirects me to archive.fo (which I noticed before), but archive.fo now greets me with a CloudFlare captcha. Considering that cfc was created in order to evade the CloudFlare captcha, this is quite a

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 274: A Name System API for Tor Onion Services

> On 12 Oct 2016, at 09:29, Jesse V wrote: > > On 10/11/2016 12:53 AM, Jeremy Rand wrote: >> It's also worth noting that it's been hard enough to get IETF to accept >> .bit (that effort stalled) -- adding a bunch of other TLD's would >> probably annoy IETF

Re: [tor-dev] RFC: Tor long-term support policy

> On 18 Jan 2017, at 09:22, nusenu wrote: > >> == Plan for current releases == >> >> 0.2.4.x, 0.2.6.x, and 0.2.7.x, will all receive at least one more >> stable release. Support for them will end on 1 August 2017. >> >> 0.2.8.x will be supported until 1 January

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 274: A Name System API for Tor Onion Services

grarpamp writes: > Always wondered how naming is relevant, > for example, IPv6 with OnionCat as a deterministic > form of naming. So now we propose a 'naming' layer. > Which should not also support IPv6 addressing? > Is not IPv6, subsequent to the 80bit scheme, > merely a