On 06.08.17 00:41, Chad MILLER wrote:
> We have several supported lines. Simple greater-than doesn't tell us
> anything about later-ness.
That's common when developing on multiple branches. In any case, I did
not say that greater-than is relevant, only newer-than on a production
branch, but even
On 06.08.2017 00:33, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> On 06.08.17 00:08, Chad MILLER wrote:
>
>> Careful. 0.3.0.1 > 0.2.9.14orsomething, but the former is probably
>> too buggy.
> I fail to see how that relates to my earlier message. When a new Tor
> production version is released, it is by definition recom
We have several supported lines. Simple greater-than doesn't tell us
anything about later-ness.
On Aug 5, 2017 15:33, "Ralph Seichter" wrote:
On 06.08.17 00:08, Chad MILLER wrote:
> Careful. 0.3.0.1 > 0.2.9.14orsomething, but the former is probably
> too buggy.
I fail to see how that relates
On 06.08.17 00:08, Chad MILLER wrote:
> Careful. 0.3.0.1 > 0.2.9.14orsomething, but the former is probably
> too buggy.
I fail to see how that relates to my earlier message. When a new Tor
production version is released, it is by definition recommended, or it
would not be a production release in
Careful. 0.3.0.1 > 0.2.9.14orsomething, but the former is probably too
buggy.
On Aug 5, 2017 14:59, "Ralph Seichter" wrote:
On 05.08.17 22:17, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> [...] I opened two tickets, one for making this particular situation
> less likely to happen again, and another for fixing
On 05.08.17 22:17, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> [...] I opened two tickets, one for making this particular situation
> less likely to happen again, and another for fixing the whole treadmill
> where people have to edit text files before a new version should come
> out [...]
No longer displaying warn
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 12:34:35PM +0200, Ralph Seichter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> after updating to Tor 0.3.0.10, I see the following warning on my nodes:
>
> This version of Tor (0.3.0.10) is newer than any recommended version
> in its series, according to the directory authorities.
>
> Could on
On my LAN I'm using Unbound, forwarding all requests to "root servers".
I've read it's not really cool for a high traffic server, to preserve
those root servers...?
But for home, I think it's perfect.
For an exit, why not using too a dns cache as Igor said, may be less
agressive for the root serv
Ralph Seichter wrote:
> I moved a Tor relay to new hardware, keeping the keys. Both old and new
> server are located in Germany and provided by the same hosting company.
> After the latest Atlas update, I was surprised to see that the IPv4
> address is listed as belonging to an AS in Ukraine. A lit
On 1 August 2017 at 21:24, Schroedinger wrote:
> if anyone at SHA2017 is interested in meeting up, perhaps we could set
> up a self-organized session for Tor relay operators.
I'm here as well. I'll happily meet and talk about Tor!
Cheers,
Alex.
--
Alexander Færøy
__
On 04.08.17 00:12, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> It should not affect your consensus weight -- that number is made by
> several vantage points actually making Tor circuits through relays
> including yours [...]
It has only been two days, but the consensus weight has not changed
much. As I expected, t
Hello,
after updating to Tor 0.3.0.10, I see the following warning on my nodes:
This version of Tor (0.3.0.10) is newer than any recommended version
in its series, according to the directory authorities.
Could one of the devs please update the relevant data? Thanks.
-Ralph
_
12 matches
Mail list logo
