On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Runa Sandvik wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2011, at 22:00, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>
> > On 06/07/2011 01:28 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:08:48 +0100
> >> "Runa A. Sandvik" wrote:
> Vidalia is not designed to control or configure a Tor process that
On 7 Jun 2011, at 22:00, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> On 06/07/2011 01:28 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:08:48 +0100
>> "Runa A. Sandvik" wrote:
Vidalia is not designed to control or configure a Tor process that
it did not start.
>>>
>>> I have tested this, and it works
On 06/07/2011 01:28 PM, Andrew Lewman wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:08:48 +0100
> "Runa A. Sandvik" wrote:
>>> Vidalia is not designed to control or configure a Tor process that
>>> it did not start.
>>
>> I have tested this, and it works just fine. The question is; are we
>> happy with something
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:08:48 +0100
"Runa A. Sandvik" wrote:
> > Vidalia is not designed to control or configure a Tor process that
> > it did not start.
>
> I have tested this, and it works just fine. The question is; are we
> happy with something that works, even if it's being used in a way that
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Robert Ransom wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 06:00:48 -0400
> Nathan Freitas wrote:
>
>> On 05/29/2011 07:21 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>> > Or perhaps we can just turn Tor on by default, ship tor-fw-helper and write
>> > a basic status of Tor out to a static html f
