On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:11:17 +0200 Moritz Bartl mor...@torservers.net
wrote:
We sometimes see Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit
creation requests! on our servers. Scott Bennett suggested to set
MaxOnionsPending to 250 instead of the default of 100, which at least
makes the
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:51:35 -0400
Steve Snyder swsny...@snydernet.net allegedly wrote:
Allowing exits from ports 80 and 443 will always carry the risk of
abuse complaints.
It would be better to retain 80 and 443 as exit ports and just block
traffic to the Google/Yahoo/AOL/etc. mail
On 31.07.2012 12:21, mick wrote:
Question for tor developers. How hard would it be to change the logic
(and syntax) of exit policy in tor to allow domain based formulations
like:
reject *.gmail.com
reject *aol.com
We see webmail based spam reports from all kinds of addresses. The
better
Hi Roger,
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 02:58:54PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
Open questions we need to decide about:
1) What exactly would we pay for?
I think the right way to do it is to offer to reimburse bandwidth/hosting
costs -- I don't want to get into the business of paying people
I've thought about constructing iptables rules to limit the number of
SYN packets for the same host per second or such
Multiple flows to the same host don't really bother routers of any class.
Old routers choke when looking up many hosts in the routing table.
So your proposed rules against
2012/7/31 grarpamp grarp...@gmail.com:
I've thought about constructing iptables rules to limit the number of
SYN packets for the same host per second or such
Multiple flows to the same host don't really bother routers of any class.
Old routers choke when looking up many hosts in the routing
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:32:30PM +0200, Julian Wissmann wrote:
we've got an offer for 10GBit
unmetered@750?, which is kind of sweet spot performance/buck wise and I
guess, that it could handle 8-12 Tor nodes performance wise to satisfy
the pipe. It would be a large number of high performance
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:01:13PM -0400, Steve Snyder wrote:
At the same time, much of our performance improvement comes from better
load balancing -- that is, concentrating traffic on the relays that can
handle it better. The result though is a direct tradeoff with relay
diversity: on
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:34:14PM +0100, mick wrote:
We've lined up our first funder (BBG, aka http://www.voanews.com/),
and they're excited to have us start as soon as we can. They want to
sponsor 125+ fast exits.
Forgive me, but what do they want in return? (He who pays the
piper...)
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 05:49:34AM -0400, Motoko Kusanagi wrote:
I am very interested in running 100 Mbit (maybe even more) exit nodes at
100$/month, however, a question immediately comes to mind:
When we say 100Mbit exit node, do we imply really unmetered traffic at
100 Mbit, or do we mean
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 03:05:32PM +0100, Andrew Beveridge wrote:
- What do you currently pay for hosting/bandwidth, and how much bandwidth
do you get for that?
This is a complicated question, because I run a single Tor exit in a VPS on
my company dedicated server. I run a local company
Is there any justification for a low-bandwidth Tor node?
Other than the diversity of having more nodes around...
seems from discussions here that slower nodes see less
users. Which means they're not as likely to be blocked
by content providers for user misbehavior. This can be
valuable for the
12 matches
Mail list logo
