Re: [tor-relays] "Potentially dangerous relay groups"

>> -Original Message- >> From: noc@babylon.network > >> Always watching my ass to be a good old . > > Watching your arse or watching an ass are both odd things to do Presuming that is North Amerca as winter is approaching it would be good to cover your ass.

Re: [tor-relays] "Potentially dangerous relay groups"

> -Original Message- > From: noc@babylon.network > Always watching my ass to be a good old . Watching your arse or watching an ass are both odd things to do ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

Re: [tor-relays] "Potentially dangerous relay groups"

> To possibly simplify this a bit, consider that: > *) It doesn't hurt anything if a node has itself listed in its own > MyFamily. > You can just use the same MyFamily string in all your configs. > Roman Would that unknown fact be the reason so many MyFamily sections are botched? With changing

Re: [tor-relays] "Potentially dangerous relay groups"

>> Always watching my ass to be a good old Tor operator, I got my >> nodes on the list. Always fun to see how one time not updating all >> your MyFamily's gets you marked for life xD >> >> Time for some conf-updating. > > To possibly simplify this a bit, consider that: > > *) It doesn't hurt

Re: [tor-relays] "Potentially dangerous relay groups"

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:24:59 +0200 Tim Semeijn wrote: > Always watching my ass to be a good old Tor operator, I got my nodes on > the list. Always fun to see how one time not updating all your > MyFamily's gets you marked for life xD > > Time for some conf-updating. To

Re: [tor-relays] "Potentially dangerous relay groups"

Sounds like CloudFlare's threat policy. On Sep 27, 2016 2:36 PM, "Tim Semeijn" wrote: > Always watching my ass to be a good old Tor operator, I got my nodes on > the list. Always fun to see how one time not updating all your > MyFamily's gets you marked for life xD > > Time

Re: [tor-relays] "Potentially dangerous relay groups"

> Always watching my ass to be a good old Tor operator, I got my nodes on > the list. Always fun to see how one time not updating all your > MyFamily's gets you marked for life xD > > Time for some conf-updating. I wouldn't bother doing that manually. I guess a good lazy operator automates all

Re: [tor-relays] log message: [WARN] Failing because we have X connections already.

> I'm limited to 1360 tcp sockets. That's really bad for a Tor node, and I'm not sure you'll be able to work around it effectively. Even my non-exit nodes routinely have 7000 - 8000 established sockets. ___ tor-relays mailing list

Re: [tor-relays] Strange difference between rx and tx traffic

I remember when I've set up vnstat on a Raspberry Pi hosted in a DataCenter, without Tor... only a webserver + NTP were available And I saw a lot of RX Megabytes, that's why I've set up NTOP to monitor eth0. It was a lot of broadcast/multicast, ex: 224.0.0.0 + others

Re: [tor-relays] "Potentially dangerous relay groups"

Always watching my ass to be a good old Tor operator, I got my nodes on the list. Always fun to see how one time not updating all your MyFamily's gets you marked for life xD Time for some conf-updating. On 27/09/16 19:37, nusenu wrote: > pa...@web.de wrote: >> there is that list of

Re: [tor-relays] log message: [WARN] Failing because we have X connections already.

Hi Helmut, Thank you very much for the helpful reply. Indeed it is OpenVZ which is the limiting factor. I'm limited to 1360 tcp sockets. Here are the entries from /proc/user_beancounters where failcnt > 0 (the last column): numtcpsock 1277 1360 1360 1360 99386 tcprcvbuf

Re: [tor-relays] log message: [WARN] Failing because we have X connections already.

Hello David, Am 27.09.2016 um 19:47 schrieb David S: > i setup a new tor exit server and am seeing this in the log messages: > > 18:25:01 [WARN] Failing because we have 1352 connections already. Please > read doc/TUNING for guidance. [11430 similar message(s) suppressed in > last 21600 seconds]

Re: [tor-relays] Strange difference between rx and tx traffic

On 09/27/2016 04:39 PM, pa011 wrote: Yes I know Tristan -Thank you for reminding (a quick good tutorial would make change easier) here's just an example how i have it setup: on ubuntu: apt install unbound dnscrypt-proxy add this to /etc/rc.local: /usr/sbin/dnscrypt-proxy -a 127.0.0.1:40 -u

[tor-relays] log message: [WARN] Failing because we have X connections already.

greetings! i setup a new tor exit server and am seeing this in the log messages: 18:25:01 [WARN] Failing because we have 1352 connections already. Please read doc/TUNING for guidance. [11430 similar message(s) suppressed in last 21600 seconds] any ideas why? this is happening on a shared

[tor-relays] "Potentially dangerous relay groups"

pa...@web.de wrote: > there is that list of "potentially_dangerous_relaygroups" you published. > Could yo please emphasize a bit more on what brings a relay on that list, > apart from incorrect given MyFamily which doesnt seem to be always the case. > I mean I see quite a few well respected names

Re: [tor-relays] Strange difference between rx and tx traffic

more in traffic than out.. i dont know. maybe your firewall/provider is blocking traffic? for local DNS i'd recommend unbound + dnscrypt. ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org

Re: [tor-relays] [OrNetRadar] niftybunny Digital Ocean 2016-09-22

Hi nusenu, there is that list of "potentially_dangerous_relaygroups" you published. Could yo please emphasize a bit more on what brings a relay on that list, apart from incorrect given MyFamily which doesnt seem to be always the case. I mean I see quite a few well respected names on that list ?

[tor-relays] Strange difference between rx and tx traffic

On one of my recently started Exits I do see a rather huge and increasing difference between in and out traffic that I don see on any other Exit so far. The rise doesn’t seem to be linear.. Any explanation for that - or can it just be on the back of a not fixed repetitive warning? Sep 27