l-core/blob/master/psiphon/meekConn.go
> [3]:
> https://github.com/Psiphon-Labs/psiphon-tunnel-core/tree/master/psiphon/upstreamproxy
> [4]: https://golang.org/pkg/net/#TCPConn
>
> Adam Pritchard
> Psiphon Inc.
>
>
>> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 22:45:52 +
>> From: Ya
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:28:24 -0400
Adam Pritchard wrote:
> At Psiphon we often discuss (and get asked about) using Tor's
> pluggable transports directly. The cost/benefit balance hasn't yet
> been in favour of doing this, but if there's discussion of a big PT
> revamp... maybe Psiphon should indic
dam Pritchard
Psiphon Inc.
> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 22:45:52 +
> From: Yawning Angel
> To: tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
> Subject: [tor-dev] Towards a new version of the PT spec...
> Message-ID: <20150907224552.6959b...@schwanenlied.me>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset
Yawning Angel transcribed 3.3K bytes:
> So, we currently have a Pluggable Transport (PT) spec, and it kind-of
> sort-of works (The documentation is a mess that I'm working on
> cleaning up, but it's an orthogonal issue for how well it works).
>
> There are a number of problems with the current PT
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:14:41 -0400
Brandon Wiley wrote:
> It is my understanding that a sponsored project is coming up to work a
> pluggable transport 2.0 specification and implementation. I've also
> heard that the first step for this is to have a meeting where we get
> together with people that
It is my understanding that a sponsored project is coming up to work a
pluggable transport 2.0 specification and implementation. I've also heard
that the first step for this is to have a meeting where we get together
with people that either use pluggable transports or implement them, for the
purpos
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 17:39:58 +1000
Tim Wilson-Brown - teor wrote:
>
> > On 8 Sep 2015, at 08:45, Yawning Angel
> > wrote:
> >
> > So, we currently have a Pluggable Transport (PT) spec, and it
> > kind-of sort-of works (The documentation is a mess that I'm working
> > on cleaning up, but it's an
> On 8 Sep 2015, at 08:45, Yawning Angel wrote:
>
> So, we currently have a Pluggable Transport (PT) spec, and it kind-of
> sort-of works (The documentation is a mess that I'm working on
> cleaning up, but it's an orthogonal issue for how well it works).
>
> There are a number of problems with
Yawning Angel writes:
> So, we currently have a Pluggable Transport (PT) spec, and it kind-of
> sort-of works (The documentation is a mess that I'm working on
> cleaning up, but it's an orthogonal issue for how well it works).
>
> There are a number of problems with the current PT spec that requi
So, we currently have a Pluggable Transport (PT) spec, and it kind-of
sort-of works (The documentation is a mess that I'm working on
cleaning up, but it's an orthogonal issue for how well it works).
There are a number of problems with the current PT spec that require
breaking backward compatibilit
10 matches
Mail list logo
