And issue resolved. Thanks!
--
Revi
https://www.revi.pe.kr
-- Sent from Android --
2015. 6. 8. 오후 1:30에 "Hong, Yongmin" 님이 작성:
> Ok, I've put reject rules at the bottom (and updated the paste). Let's see
> what globe&atlas say.
>
> --
> Revi
> https://www.revi.pe.kr
> -- Sent from Android --
> 20
Ok, I've put reject rules at the bottom (and updated the paste). Let's see
what globe&atlas say.
--
Revi
https://www.revi.pe.kr
-- Sent from Android --
2015. 6. 8. 오후 1:07에 "n...@cock.li" 님이 작성:
> Just a guess:
> iirc, putting an asterisk (*) for ExitPolicies, it's counted as
> AF_UNSPEC, thus ad
That was rubbish so ignore it.Rob
-Original Message-From: li...@revi.pe.krSent: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 12:49:51 +0900To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.orgSubject: [tor-relays] (n00b) Exit node questionHello, it's my first time running an exit. (Well, I'm n00b in running a relay too :p)
I think
Just a guess:
iirc, putting an asterisk (*) for ExitPolicies, it's counted as
AF_UNSPEC, thus adding the rule for both ipv6 and ipv4.
Since policy rules are considered in the order they're listed (ie rules
stated first override later rules), the "ExitPolicy reject6 *:*" being
first, counts as rejec
You've should put a # before reject *.* to stop it being a rule that is operating.Rob
-Original Message-From: li...@revi.pe.krSent: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 12:49:51 +0900To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.orgSubject: [tor-relays] (n00b) Exit node questionHello, it's my first time running an exit.
Hello, it's my first time running an exit. (Well, I'm n00b in running a
relay too :p)
I think I followed the guidelines correctly to be an exit (with some
modification from reduced exit policy on trac), but atlas and globe reports
that my exitpolicy is "reject *:*".
My configuration is at [1].
P
