Ola Bini writes:
> [ text/plain ]
> Hey,
>
>>
>>
>> That's not very nice because the USED_GUARDS set that was created when
>> ClientsUseIPv6 or FascistFirewall were on will have reduced diversity. Then
>> even if we switch off those options, we are still stuck with reduced
>> diversity.
>>
>> I
Hi,
>
> teor:
> or "delete you state file"
>
Cleaning the state file is a good idea, presuming there aren't any other bits
in other package files.
>
> set "UseEntryGuards".
>
The right interface is all that is needed (:
Wordlife,
Spencer
___
> On 6 Apr 2016, at 23:42, Ola Bini wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, we talked about that yesterday. Our suggestion is to do
>>> something like this:
>>> - if the filtered/reduced sample-set contains less than X (5?) guards,
>>> expand SAMPLED guards using the regular process.
>>> - If SAMPLE guards reach SAM
Adding tor-dev.
On 04/06/2016 08:53 AM, Tania Silva wrote:
> Hey,
>
>> Yeah, we talked about that yesterday. Our suggestion is to do
>> something like this:
>> - if the filtered/reduced sample-set contains less than X (5?) guards,
>> expand SAMPLED guards using the regular process
Hi,
> No, clients typically tunnel directory requests over the ORPort when they can.
> This is better for anonymity.
>
> But they will fall back to the DirPort in some circumstances.
> And relays use the DirPort all the time.
Ah, thanks - that's helpful,
> It's worse for the risk of guard comprom
> On 6 Apr 2016, at 23:08, Ola Bini wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
>>> - OrPort vs DirPort
>>> ORPort is used for regular circuits, while DirPort is used when getting
>>> directory information. We need to interpret reachable stuff
>>> differently depending on the purpose.
>> I'm not actually sure what the
Hey,
> > - OrPort vs DirPort
> > ORPort is used for regular circuits, while DirPort is used when getting
> > directory information. We need to interpret reachable stuff
> > differently depending on the purpose.
> >
>
> I'm not actually sure what the comment means here.
This was more for our own b
On 05 Apr (23:58:32), Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Isabela wrote:
> > Hello tor-dev!
> >
> > tl;dr; we want to add one more step to Trac ticket work-flow called
> > 'merge_ready' - if you don't want to use it you don't need to
>
> Hi, I just ran into a bug: There's no
