Re: [tor-relays] do not run Tor client and OR relay together!

2015-08-16 Thread Ana Lucia Cortez
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 16.08.2015 at 17:36, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote: Anyone who has configured a Tor SOCKS5 client to run in a 'tor' instance that also operates as an OR relay should isolate the client to a separate client-only process. The client

[tor-relays] do not run Tor client and OR relay together!

2015-08-16 Thread starlight . 2015q3
Anyone who has configured a Tor SOCKS5 client to run in a 'tor' instance that also operates as an OR relay should isolate the client to a separate client-only process. The client function disturbs relay traffic forwarding in a manner that lends itself to confirmation analysis. See bug 16585,

Re: [tor-relays] do not run Tor client and OR relay together!

2015-08-16 Thread starlight . 2015q3
I think separate packages are good idea --is about making it easier for regular users to configure Tor with less pain. 'openssh' provides a good example, as it come with three component packages: openssh (core files) openssh-client openssh-server so one would have tor-core tor-client

Re: [tor-relays] do not run Tor client and OR relay together!

2015-08-16 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 05:14:42PM -0400, starlight.201...@binnacle.cx wrote: Unfortunately the log-to-file feature does not include fractional seconds, but it's glaring even with whole-second resolution. Haven't looked at the rest of this thread, but: LogTimeGranularity 1 --Roger

Re: [tor-relays] do not run Tor client and OR relay together!

2015-08-16 Thread starlight . 2015q3
At 17:32 8/16/2015 -0400, you wrote: LogTimeGranularity 1 Thank you! I'm putting this in the debug activation script: TORCTRL=x.x.x.x nc ${TORCTRL:?} 9151 EOF AUTHENTICATE password SETCONF LogTimeGranularity=1 SETCONF Log=debug file logfile$(date '+%M%S') QUIT EOF

Re: [tor-relays] do not run Tor client and OR relay together!

2015-08-16 Thread s7r
Hi, Shipping tor-client and tor-relay as separate packages is the worst thing we could do, since it's the same thing with just one config line more or less. It will mess things up terribly. We don't know that just yet, we are getting to fast from one thing to another - wait until proper review