On 08.01.2018 23:59, Dave Warren wrote: > On 2018-01-08 14:09, Tortilla wrote: >> >> On Mon, January 8, 2018 11:25 am, Dave Warren wrote: >>> On 2018-01-08 03:21, Florentin Rochet wrote: >>>>> Perhaps in the case that the HS operator is not trying to mask the HS >>>>> location, the act of mixing public relay traffic can be nothing but a >>>>> *help* to defeat anyone trying to correlate traffic coming to the HS >>>>> with >>>>> traffic emanating from any one client. >>>> >>>> Yes, if the HS operator does not want to mask the HS location, then it >>>> is all good. For that purpose, I agree that the warning message should >>>> be changed. >>> >>> Indeed. I run some public resources (e.g. torproject.org mirror) on a >>> public URL with a .onion site as well. Nothing is intended to be hidden, >>> I simply want the content of anything I mirror to be available to Tor >>> users without relying on an exit. >>>
I think the real issue here is once more the wording "hidden service" for something which is, in your case, not intended to be hidden. I believe thats why the term "Onion Service" was introduced. A foolproof solution would be, that a relay complains and refuses to start if a "hidden onion service" is configured on the same instance. But would run without warning with "public onion services". I have no idea if a distinction between "public" and "hidden" onion services is planned or if its just change of wording until now. _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays