> On 16 Aug 2019, at 04:52, Pop Chunhapanya wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
>> The only protocol supported right now 'haproxy'. This option is only for
>> clients. (Default: none)
>
> I think TCPProxy option is more generic than HTTPSProxy, Socks4Proxy and
> Socks5Proxy. Why don't we also allow https,
Hi David,
> On 15 Aug 2019, at 22:56, David Goulet wrote:
>
> I'm leaning towards not closing the circuit and falling back on the consensus
> parameters.
Using the consensus parameters seems like a good thing to do.
We can say "valid parameters override the consensus parameters. Invalid
parame
Hi Tim,
The only protocol supported right now 'haproxy'. This option is only for
> clients. (Default: none)
>
I think TCPProxy option is more generic than HTTPSProxy, Socks4Proxy and
Socks5Proxy. Why don't we also allow https, socks4, and socks5 instead of
just haproxy?
__
Greetings,
This is part of the many discussions about proposal 305 which is the
ESTABLISH_INTRO DoS defenses cell extension.
Implementation is close to done and under review in ticket #30924. However,
there is one part that is yet to be cleared out. asn and I thought it would be
better to bring i
Hi Haxxpop,
> On 15 Aug 2019, at 16:53, Pop Chunhapanya wrote:
>
>
>>> So I'm thinking putting the tor daemon behind some third party TCP proxy
>>> that will protect me from this kind of DDoS attack.
>>>
>>> What do you think if I want to implement a feature that forward all the
>>> onion se
