U,koo
On Jun 6, 2015 5:00 AM, wrote:
> Send tor-relays mailing list submissions to
> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
> or, via email, send a message wit
> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 14:37:01 -0400
> From: starlight.201...@binnacle.cx
>
> At 04:12 6/7/2015 +1000, teor wrote:
> >Please let me know how you go - the 0.2.6.x
> >series should also be relatively ASAN
> >and UBSAN clean, as Tor has been tested
> >with them since late 2014.
>
> I've run 0.2.
Ok, I've put reject rules at the bottom (and updated the paste). Let's see
what globe&atlas say.
--
Revi
https://www.revi.pe.kr
-- Sent from Android --
2015. 6. 8. 오후 1:07에 "n...@cock.li" 님이 작성:
> Just a guess:
> iirc, putting an asterisk (*) for ExitPolicies, it's counted as
> AF_UNSPEC, thus ad
That was rubbish so ignore it.Rob
-Original Message-From: li...@revi.pe.krSent: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 12:49:51 +0900To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.orgSubject: [tor-relays] (n00b) Exit node questionHello, it's my first time running an exit. (Well, I'm n00b in running a relay too :p)
I think
Just a guess:
iirc, putting an asterisk (*) for ExitPolicies, it's counted as
AF_UNSPEC, thus adding the rule for both ipv6 and ipv4.
Since policy rules are considered in the order they're listed (ie rules
stated first override later rules), the "ExitPolicy reject6 *:*" being
first, counts as rejec
You've should put a # before reject *.* to stop it being a rule that is operating.Rob
-Original Message-From: li...@revi.pe.krSent: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 12:49:51 +0900To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.orgSubject: [tor-relays] (n00b) Exit node questionHello, it's my first time running an exit.
Hello, it's my first time running an exit. (Well, I'm n00b in running a
relay too :p)
I think I followed the guidelines correctly to be an exit (with some
modification from reduced exit policy on trac), but atlas and globe reports
that my exitpolicy is "reject *:*".
My configuration is at [1].
P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
The family configuration process as-is is a huge PITA, which is why a
lot of operators ignore it. Thats something for tor-dev to look at
sometime I reckon :)
On 07/06/15 17:06, nusenu wrote:
>
>> seems like avira is joining us running 24 exits thro
any publication out there about that great effort? whos involved?
Am Sonntag, 7. Juni 2015 19:06 schrieb nusenu :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
seems like avira is joining us running 24 exits through as24875.
seems to be about double the size of mozillas relays.
Yes, th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
> seems like avira is joining us running 24 exits through as24875.
> seems to be about double the size of mozillas relays.
Yes, they joined on 2015-05-11. One of the few groups of relays that
actually have a proper MyFamily configuration.
-BEG
hey
seems like avira is joining us running 24 exits through as24875. seems
to be about double the size of mozillas relays.
Yay!
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 06:42:29PM +0200, janarkop...@riseup.net wrote:
> Hi, i want to check if the relay has a good configuration.
>
> Also i have another question, why the speed of the relay is so slow,
> i have a VPS with a connection of 100mb/s, the relay is new.
>
> This is torrc:
> ORP
Hi, i want to check if the relay has a good configuration.
Also i have another question, why the speed of the relay is so slow, i
have a VPS with a connection of 100mb/s, the relay is new.
This is torrc:
ORPort 443
Exitpolicy reject *:*
Nickname Freedom4Anarchists
ContactInfo n
Am 07.06.2015 um 10:29 schrieb Josef 'veloc1ty' Stautner:
> Intergenia AG does not tolerate TOR nodes in any form.
> They listed them quite a time in their AGB's.
Intergenia as the mother company might have this in their AGB, but as I
have my server at server4you I'm bound to their AGBs and I ca
On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 12:31:52 +0200
tor-server-crea...@use.startmail.com wrote:
> > I want to investigate why obfs4 is nearly never used.
> >
> hi,
> may you want to have a look into tails bug #9268 adressing some obfs
> issue
You mean, a Tails issue that happens to affect obfs4 since it likes to
Let's hope so, as Unmetered hosts a pretty significant amount of exit
traffic.
Several of my exits run there and I too received the abuse
notifications. I've contacted Unmetered for clarification and will
return to this thread as soon as I hear more.
The way unmetered has always handled abus
I want to investigate why obfs4 is nearly never used.
hi,
may you want to have a look into tails bug #9268 adressing some obfs
issue
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Company unmetered.com (used to be running under PlusServer which is a
'premium' brand of Intergenia but now seems to be running on link11
network) did and probably still does allow Tor Exit nodes to be run on
their services. How they handled the genera
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Intergenia AG does not tolerate TOR nodes in any form.
They listed them quite a time in their AGB's.
Am 7. Juni 2015 09:55:14 MESZ, schrieb "Dr. Who" :
>Fun fact of the week, I got this abuse email on friday:
>
>"Dear Customer, we've detected that y
Fun fact of the week, I got this abuse email on friday:
"Dear Customer, we've detected that you're running a TOR Exit Node on
your machine. Please understand, that we cannot tolerate such a service
on our infrastructure. Please ensure, that this service is disabled as
soon as possible. Best Regard
20 matches
Mail list logo
