On 05/03/2012 01:32 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> On 5/2/12 9:35 PM, Sebastian G. wrote:
>> [...]
>> "We don't need it, so better remove it." I really like that.
>
> I think we're really conservative with giving out bridge data, and
> that's good.
>
> At the same time there's a value in giving ou
On 5/3/12, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> How do we define "similar" and "located where the relay is?" I can see
> how a relay "bastik1" and a bridge "bastik2" have similar nicknames, but
> would we also teach a program that "bastikrelay" and "bastikbridge" are
> similar? And are two IP address in th
Karsten Loesing, 03.05.2012 13:32:
> Hi Sebastian,
Hi Karsten,
>> Do similar names actually mean that bridges are located where the relay
>> is? (Apparently you've got the data to see these correlations)
>
> A fine question.
>
> How do we define "similar"
That's the same problem an attacker wou
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Tomás Touceda wrote:
> tldr; everything is there, it works and it probably has bugs, we need to
> deploy and see.
How about sending a list to tor-dev with information about how to
test, and where to file bugs? I'm sure a number of people on this list
would be more
[Cc'ing tor-relays, because this discussion might be relevant for
relay/bridge operators, too. Please keep the discussion on tor-dev.
See https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2012-May/003489.html
for the whole thread.]
Hi Sebastian,
On 5/2/12 9:35 PM, Sebastian G. wrote:
> [...]
>
>
