On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 08:25:40AM +0200, tor-admin wrote:
> ON Saturday, August 11. 2012, 18:25:03 Roger Dingledine wrote:
> > The constraints are:
> > * 100mbit+ connectivity, though in practice I expect they will spend
> > most of their time doing far less than that.
> > * No more than 2 bridges
Hi Roger,
Thanks for your answer :)
It's funny that you mention dfri.se, because they e-mailed me (and all
swedish relay operators i believe) yesterday and I'm lurking in their IRC
channel (and #tor) as I write this.
I also managed to join the tor-relays list, so I've had a lot to read
lately. I'm
On Monday, August 13. 2012, 00:55:45 Roger Dingledine wrote:
> This discussion really goes back to a simple question: is it better to
> use our funding for more design and development, or for strengthening
> the network? For exit relays, I think choosing "strengthen the network"
> is a great and wo
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:13:56PM +0200, tor-admin wrote:
> My understanding of bridge detection was, that Chinas GFW is able to detect
> the Tor SSL handshake and does active bridge probing after a successful
> connection to a (for the GFW) unknown bridge IP. So they should be able to
> block
Can anyone explain how to get the Unnamed flag for my node changed over
to Named?
-kupo
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
Hi everybody,
I'm not a tor expert but I am in China and have been using tor... I brought
this up before and I still feel that tor would benefit from having special
(entry)relays inside the GFW that have a reliable link to relays outside
the GFW. Clients inside GFW could then always connect to the
Martin Algö wrote
Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:39:07 +0200:
| It's funny that you mention dfri.se, because they e-mailed me (and all
| swedish relay operators i believe) yesterday and I'm lurking in their IRC
| channel (and #tor) as I write this.
[...]
Yes, DFRI emailed some 85 Swedish relay operators in
