Perhaps it would be better to outright ban these relays with no warning? I'm
sure that annoying those donating multiple relays will absolutely be encouraged
to continue doing so.
(Or to be less sarcastic: I don't operate any tor relays at this time, but I do
run public mirrors and a few other g
Came on guys, don't be so touchy. If it can harm the network it's not
harassment to point it out.
Maybe, sometimes, it would be better to say things in a more gently way to tor
operators that make mistakes.
Cheers
Gigi
Il 10 febbraio 2019 20:12:49 CET, s7r ha scritto:
>+1
>
>It looks like
+1
It looks like harassment.
Tyler Durden wrote:
> +1
>
> Good to know that I'm not the only one finding this behavior of him wicked.
>
>
> Emilian Ursu:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was planning to bring up this issue but the other way around,
>> ContactInfo, Nickname and Myfamily are non-enforceable so
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:00:21 +
Emilian Ursu wrote:
> What? Rejected from what? Does one have to earn the right
> to commit time and resources for helping the network?
Point is that by running tons of relays without proper MyFamily set, you are
not helping the network, you are actively harmin
+1
Good to know that I'm not the only one finding this behavior of him wicked.
Emilian Ursu:
> Hi,
>
> I was planning to bring up this issue but the other way around,
> ContactInfo, Nickname and Myfamily are non-enforceable so why
> should tor rely on spoofable information for its operation?
>
Hi,
I was planning to bring up this issue but the other way around,
ContactInfo, Nickname and Myfamily are non-enforceable so why
should tor rely on spoofable information for its operation?
I saw some discussions about contacting hosting providers to
reach out to server operators and I see you ha
Hi,
On February 6, 2019 10:48:29 AM UTC, grarpamp wrote:
...
>
>And if nicknames go away (status on that proposal),
>then contact is likely to absorb that function, including
>the current always present nature of nickname.
There is no proposal to remove Nicknames.
The authorities don't vote f
On 2/5/19, Roman Mamedov wrote:
>> Nicknames are required to be non-empty, did that stop any abuse?
> Correction: Nicknames default to "Unnamed" when unset.
> However did any of the recent abuse or suspected-malicious relays actually
> use "Unnamed"?
The consensus contains quite some fraction o
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 02:57:33 +0500
Roman Mamedov wrote:
> Nicknames are required to be non-empty, did that stop any abuse?
Correction: Nicknames default to "Unnamed" when unset. However did any of the
recent abuse or suspected-malicious relays actually use "Unnamed"? From your
E-Mails trying to r
On Tue, 05 Feb 2019 21:25:00 +
nusenu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> due to some recent and ongoing events related
> to a malicious entity running tor relays
> I'll start to pursue an idea that I had
> for some time: require non-empty ContactInfo
> (non-empty does not mean valid email address)
>
> This
Hi,
due to some recent and ongoing events related
to a malicious entity running tor relays
I'll start to pursue an idea that I had
for some time: require non-empty ContactInfo
(non-empty does not mean valid email address)
This is primarily a non-technical policy discussion
which will take place
11 matches
Mail list logo
