> more advanced ways to look at the information
Yes it's slightly different in that the ticket means to
log where requests are set to exit from and when
for history.
> me to be the first to know that my computer is requesting
> a circuit to somewhere. Gives me half a second to rip out
> the cable
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:28:17PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:32 AM, carlo von lynX
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> >> So the question is, would it be okay to catch ESPIPE in
> >> all cases, thus having it ignored in
> I have the opposite wish case were I would like to have a terminal
> show me the addresses my tor is connecting to in real-time.
The debug log output isn't very useful for logging the final condition
of successful "connection 'requests' in realtime".
As you can see, only the initial 'Client ask
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:32 AM, carlo von lynX
wrote:
[...]
> So the question is, would it be okay to catch ESPIPE in
> all cases, thus having it ignored in tor_fd_seekend,
> or just catch it in add_file_log? Or is there a reason to
> impede the use of unix named pipes under all circumstances?
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:32 AM, carlo von lynX
> wrote:
> [...]
>> So the question is, would it be okay to catch ESPIPE in
>> all cases, thus having it ignored in tor_fd_seekend,
>> or just catch it in add_file_log? Or is there a reason t
Hiya. Been around the tor dev community a bit, but
today is my first day on the legendary tor-dev
mailing list. I am asking if it makes sense to apply
a minor patch to Tor source, but first, the use case:
tor is very adamant at scrubbing the addresses that
are being connected to in the logs, but I
