That's what I concluded after finding the ticket, but helpful to a new exit
relay operator to have this confirmed.
--torix
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 9:10 AM, s7r wrote:
> livak wrote:
>
> > The relay repeatedly casts th
>> does anyone know if maha still supports his Fedora/Epel repo for the latest
>> Tor release[1]?
>>
>> I'm nearly sure he announced his repo on the list some time ago, but I don't
>> find the mail anymore...
>>
>> With 0.3.3.10 (and 0.3.4.8) released and not really happy with compiling it
>> my
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 04:35:46PM +0200, re...@mobtm.com wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> does anyone know if maha still supports his Fedora/Epel repo for the latest
> Tor release[1]?
>
> I'm nearly sure he announced his repo on the list some time ago, but I don't
> find the mail anymore...
>
> With 0.3.3.
Hi *,
does anyone know if maha still supports his Fedora/Epel repo for the latest Tor
release[1]?
I'm nearly sure he announced his repo on the list some time ago, but I don't
find the mail anymore...
With 0.3.3.10 (and 0.3.4.8) released and not really happy with compiling it
myself[2] an up t
livak wrote:
> The relay repeatedly casts the following message:
>
> Sep 18 08:19:58.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR
> circuit with purpose Acting as rendevous (pending)
>
> What does it mean ?
>
> Livak
>
>
We know about it for quite some time and investigating. It is safe
The relay repeatedly casts the following message:
Sep 18 08:19:58.000 [warn] Tried to establish rendezvous on non-OR circuit with
purpose Acting as rendevous (pending)
What does it mean ?
Livak
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
When tor is starting up, it binds the configured ports as root and then
drops user privileges to run as another user e.g. debian-tor by default
on debian systems. This user has no privileges to bind reserved ports
lower than 1024. When changing the configuration, it will fail to reload
due to missi
The ORPort option of torrc was changed fom 9030 to 80,
the relay was sent a HUP signal:
kill -HUP [PID]
and exited with:
Sep 18 07:59:04.000 [notice] Received reload signal (hup). Reloading config and
resetting internal state.
Sep 18 07:59:04.000 [notice] Read configuration file
"/usr/share/to
On 9/18/18 1:31 PM, nusenu wrote:
>[but torservers.net says: "We run managed and unmanaged nodes" and "Our
> goal is to run exit nodes"?]
Yes. The collective group does that.
Everything you state is correct.
> ok than I misunderstood your earlier sentence ("but are shutting down more
> and
when reading one of your previous emails in this thread I realized that I
probably never
had a correct understanding of "Zwiebelfreunde e.V." vs "Torservers".
so maybe it is time for me to get a better understanding, would be great if
you could confirm, here is my latest understanding:
Zwiebel
Le 2018-09-18 11:33, r1610091651 a écrit :
Hi
I've noticed following after upgrading to latest stable version
(0.3.4.8):
Memory usage
Connection count
Cpu usage
You'll notice the upgrade happened around Saturday midnight.
Known issue? Any work-around?
Thanks
Sebastian
Hi
Upgraded 5 day
Hi
I've noticed following after upgrading to latest stable version (0.3.4.8):
Memory usage
[image: image.png]
Connection count
[image: image.png]
Cpu usage
[image: image.png]
You'll notice the upgrade happened around Saturday midnight.
Known issue? Any work-around?
Thanks
Sebastian
_
Thanks teor,
> Your relay's IPv6 Exit policy is:
> reject 1-65535
> Which is the port summary for:
> reject *6:*
IPv6 is now enabled on the exit relay and its exit policy updated.
I set the maximum open descriptors to 10,000 with
ulimit -n 1
Are there any other system limits I should consi
On 9/17/18 11:24 AM, nusenu wrote:
>> We have a bunch of exit relays on our own AS
>> https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#search/185.220.102 and the NForce
>> ones. We used to run more, but are shutting down more and more because
>> of lack of time to properly maintain everything.
> are you acti
14 matches
Mail list logo
