rably increases performance for clients using low-bandwidth bridges."
This would obviously create better utilisation of circuits as a whole, so it
may well make my idea totally redundant. :)
Cheers,
--
Paritesh Boyeyoko
paritesh.boyey...@gmail.com
On Wednesday 17 Sep 2014 22:40:36 Tim w
drive more traffic across slow relays. :)
Best,
--
Paritesh Boyeyoko
paritesh.boyey...@gmail.com
On Tuesday 16 Sep 2014 17:36:41 Toralf Förster wrote:
> On 09/16/2014 03:35 AM, Paritesh Boyeyoko wrote:
> > Hello --
> > So, I was thinking that in the same way that Tor relays have
d favour slower circuits
(being mostly text-based).
Perhaps the entrance policies could be maintained on-network (perhaps with
"authority servers", with
clients downloading the policies when they start up, rather than having them
hard coded or configured
client-side?
Just some idea
@jj tor
The fact that your relay is refusing connections says that the port isn't
open, which is a good thing.
I suspect that persons unknown have port scanned your VPS, realised that you
have Tor running (on standard ports) and is speculatively using a bot to
(hopefully) connect to the SOCKS
Gonna throw this out there. I've seen it written ealier that in certain
jurisdictions Tor operators are protected under the DMCA by being
classed as a "common carrier", same as ISPs. Is that correct?
If so, well ISPs rate limit or QoS certain types of traffic all the time,
usually at peak tim
@jj tor
If your torrc literally reads "SocksPort = 0" (no quotes) then the config
parser will ignore this and fall back to the default internal setting which is
port 9050 wide open.
Your torrc needs to read "SocksPort 0" (no quotes) to disable SOCKS
connectivity.
Best,
--
Parity
parity@g
@jj tor
...and before I forget, yes deploy IPtables anyway. :)
Best,
--
Parity
parity@gmail.com___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
On Monday 04 Nov 2013 04:10:55 Roger Dingledine wrote:
> Today's interactions with ISPs influence Tor's future viability. So if
> people are accidentally exit relays without knowing it, I worry as much
> about the damage to the ISP's view of Tor as I do about the temporary
> hassle for the operato
On Sunday 03 Nov 2013 23:50:58 Lukas Erlacher wrote:
> Censor torrents because your provider will shut you down if you
> generate DMCA complaints and C&D's; censor them because you truly
> believe that the torrents are a necessary sacrifice to allow the Tor
> network to continue to function; don't
On Saturday 02 Nov 2013 22:30:00 t...@tafb.xxx wrote:
> I'm new to running a relay. There are lots of exit policies when I look at
> my atlas details:
> https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/DDB401F4CA108C6F6AF4E0DCE2DFC3407F577
> B21
>
> Is this a pretty good exit policy list to prevent harassmen
On Friday 01 Nov 2013 14:39:28 Gordon Morehouse wrote:
> Completely aside from the ethical and censorship-related buzzsaw you're
> about to run into for posting this (perennial) question, I believe some
> actual developers on Tor have written a paper about the problems with
> Bittorrent et al (and
On Saturday 02 Nov 2013 17:10:50 Moritz Bartl wrote:
> As one of the large operators that indeed allows exiting on all ports
> except 25: This is on purpose. I don't consider applications that choose
> random ports as bad, I don't consider file sharing per se as bad. I
> don't want to interfere wi
On Saturday 02 Nov 2013 13:21:39 Moritz Bartl wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 01:15 PM, Paritesh Boyeyoko wrote:
> > Publication of sample exit policies? Would that encourage exit node
> > operators to run restricted exit policies, and save themselves loads of
> > bandwidth and DMCA h
On Friday 01 Nov 2013 20:02:29 Gordon Morehouse wrote:
>
> What if someone inside a totalitarian state is attempting to upload
> evidence of a massacre to a service which runs on port 80?
Yeah, I did think of this but I thought I'd put it out there anyway.
Unfortunately, too many sites/services
On Friday 01 Nov 2013 20:57:54 Ted Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 01:27 +0100, Lunar wrote:
> > Nelson:
> > > Please excuse my ignorance operating Tor relays, but if I run an exit
> > > node on Windows 7 and use something like Peerblock and correspoding
> > > block lists of P2P sites, wouldn'
On Friday 01 Nov 2013 19:36:11 krishna e bera wrote:
> Isnt that about the same percentage on the non-Tor internet?
Probably. :)
> It would help if most bittorrent trackers enforced sharing ratios of
> around 1:1 (since Tor clients cannot accept incoming connections, unless
> on a .onion HS).
P
On Friday 01 Nov 2013 11:22:19 Nelson wrote:
> Please excuse my ignorance operating Tor relays, but if I run an exit
> node on Windows 7 and use something like Peerblock and correspoding
> block lists of P2P sites, wouldn't this be somewhat effective in
> stopping this sort of undesired traffic on
On Friday 01 Nov 2013 05:37:14 I wrote:
>The advice on how to manage exit problems seems to
> be very sound and Tor is defensible because it is being abused by
> torrenting also.
>
...and this is something else I don't quite understand. People who know about
Tor (which obviously includes exit o
On Thursday 31 Oct 2013 21:52:41 Roger Dingledine wrote:
> The main reason for this choice is the number of people who've told us
> that they are only able to run exit relays because "it's what Tor does
> when you run a relay", and their institution wouldn't let them do it if
> it required a manua
On Thursday 31 Oct 2013 15:34:20 Andreas Krey wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:43:41 +0000, Paritesh Boyeyoko wrote:
> ...
>
> > This is something which has always confused/annoyed me. How can a Tor
> > node
> > (unless it's exposing its SOCKS interface to the w
On Wednesday 30 Oct 2013 08:43:21 Tom Ritter wrote:
> On 29 October 2013 22:53, Sanjeev Gupta wrote:
> > Yes, to some extent. I edited the config, as I was willing to pay for the
> > extra bandwidth, and enabled an Exit Relay.
> >
> > I was under the impression that this was permitted.
>
> Amaz
21 matches
Mail list logo
