teor: > Hi, > >> On 27 Mar 2020, at 02:00, niftybunny <abuse-cont...@to-surf-and-protect.net> >> wrote: >> >> My bad. Never seen this before. I there a good reason for the accept >> 133.0.0.0/8:80 ? >> >>> On 26. Mar 2020, at 15:06, ger...@bulger.co.uk wrote: >>> >>> "btw, you need to have at least port 80 and 443 … port 80 is missing …" >>> >>> It there. But to a /8 area IPV4, all IPv6 >>> >>> I have not changed my exit policy for years. Port 80 is there, just >>> limited to a /8 network and all IPv6 addresses port 80 allowed. >>> 443 all there IPv4 and IPv6 >>> >>> Testing seems to be exiting OK, but badexit tag still there. > > The Exit flag only request one IPv4 /8 : > https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt#n2628 > > But if the network health team is testing a different IPv4 /8, then your > relay might appear down.
Yep, I think that's what happened. I'll get the badexit flag removed from both of your relays and think about ways for improving our tests. Sorry for the inconvenience. (FWIW: I sent an email to the address you put into your ContactInfo. I heard that mails for Tor Project addresses repeatedly land in spam folders. Maybe that happened this time, too.) > (If the DNS for the site they are testing has both IPv4 and IPv6, then > the outcome will depend on their tor version and config. 0.4.3 and > later will prefer IPv6 by default.) Not sure what Arthur is running but I am just using what Debian ships on the box I run the tests, which is currently 0.3.5.8. I guess it might be worth thinking about switching away from that. Maybe tracking and using the version Tor Browser ships is smarter? Georg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays