On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 02:09:02AM +, to...@protonmail.com wrote:
> Looking at the new, improved instructions for Debian/Ubuntu obfs4
> bridges, I am confused by the talk about a fixed obfs4 bridge port.
> The line to do this is commented out. Does that mean it is optional
> to give obfs4 a
Looking at the new, improved instructions for Debian/Ubuntu obfs4 bridges, I am
confused by the talk about a fixed obfs4 bridge port. The line to do this is
commented out. Does that mean it is optional to give obfs4 a fixed port? If
it were a random port, however, I'd need a lot of open ports
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 12:22:29PM -0700, Philipp Winter wrote:
> We therefore want to encourage volunteers to set up new obfs4 bridges to
> help censored users. Over the last few weeks, we have been improving
> our obfs4 setup guide which walks you through the process:
>
Tim Niemeyer:
> Maybe it is a load problem, because this machine has 100% cpu load? :(
Generally speaking running a relay at 100% of hardware resources all the time
will not make happy users and we should optimize for a smooth tor browser
experience more than a high bw or hw resource usage.
I
Dear Relay Operators,
Thanks to everyone who opted-in their relays as fallback directory
mirrors.
We rebuilt the list of fallbacks in June 2019. [0] The new list
will be released in Tor 0.4.1.4-alpha/rc. It was backported to all
supported Tor releases. [1]
The FallbackDir flags on Consensus
