For an enter policy, there is the ExcludeNodes config option, which defines
relays or locales never to be used in circuits.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:48 PM, krishna e bera wrote:
> On 13-08-26 04:57 PM, Piotrkowska wrote:
> > I am running an exit node under reduced exit policy on a VPS. My
> >
I run an exit node off of a residential Verizon connection and I haven't
seen a single threat, legal or otherwise so far, I dunno why you're having
so much trouble.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 9:02 PM, That Guy wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am not new to Tor bur am to
I think that's part of the joke
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Andrea Shepard wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:27:22AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> > On 8/30/13, Andrea Shepard wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:08:34AM -0500, Jon Gardner wrote:
> > >> Then why have exit policies? Exit n
I scrapped my previous exit node and set up a new one on a different
machine. It's been running for 6 and a half hours, but does not have the
exit flag. The logs say both my ORPort and DirPort are reachable from the
outside, and using arm from a different machine shows two circuits open.
>From the
I'll take your word for it, but it seems more than a little odd that it
doesn't have the "exit" flag applied
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
I was using arm when I noticed this line:
173.79.154.243 --> 173.79.154.243 (us) Purpose:
Ags=is_internal,need_capacity, Circuit ID: 5
4.0m (CIRCUIT)
That's my IP, and it showed the exit node as the same as my node. There are
Whoops! Thanks Rodger
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:22 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 10:08:58PM -0400, Niles Rogoff wrote:
> > I was using arm when I noticed this line:
> >
> > 173.79.154.243 --> 173.79.154.243 (us) Purp
