Unsub
Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com), Swiss-based encrypted email.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: tor-relays Digest, Vol 67, Issue 22
Local Time: August 8, 2016 2:00 AM
UTC Time: August 8, 2016 12:00 PM
From: tor-relays-requ...@lists.torproject.org
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Send tor-relays mailing list submissions to
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
tor-relays-requ...@lists.torproject.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
tor-relays-ow...@lists.torproject.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of tor-relays digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: tor-relays Digest, Vol 67, Issue 12 (grarpamp)
2. Re: is explicit DirPort needed anymore under Tor 0.2.8.6? (teor)
3. Re: [PATCH] debian package upgrade restart issue (nusenu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 01:40:59 -0400
From: grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com>
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Cc: flipc...@riseup.net
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] tor-relays Digest, Vol 67, Issue 12
Message-ID:
<CAD2Ti2-2R0KE+KA6EkMwVftA8G8Bi9OV4sYr0k=a-5CD=we...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 8/5/16, Flipchan <flipc...@riseup.net> wrote:
> [bad netiquette]
When replying to digests...
- At minimum, change the subject to the original subject.
Optimally also include proper header threading.
Repliers should subscribe to per message distribution instead.
- Delete all content from the original except some minimum
needed to establish context to which you are replying,
instead of spamming out longquotes of already said longtext.
- Reply inline below each piece of context to which you are
replying, instead of top posting.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:33:42 +1000
From: teor <teor2...@gmail.com>
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] is explicit DirPort needed anymore under Tor
0.2.8.6?
Message-ID: <6aabda0a-4835-4b2c-a60d-a7a64568b...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> On 3 Aug 2016, at 10:29, teor <teor2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Clients on 0.2.7.6 and earlier still use the IPv4 DirPort.
> (Tor Browser is still 0.2.7.6, and apps in general may take some time to
> upgrade.)
>
> Authorities on0.2.7.6 and earlier will only assign the HSDir flag to relays
> with an IPv4 DirPort.
> (Authorities may take some time to upgrade, because running different
> versions increases authority diversity.)
For the record, even though the man page entry for HidServDirectoryV2 says the
DirPort is not required to be a HSDir, authorities on 0.2.7 and earlier still
check for it before assigning the HSDir flag.
Authorities on 0.2.8 and later behave in a way that's consistent with
HidServDirectoryV2, assigning the HSDir flag to any relay that wants to be a
HSDir, and either supports being a directory cache, or has a DirPort.
HidServDirectoryV2 0|1
When this option is set, Tor accepts and serves v2 hidden service
descriptors. Setting DirPort is not required for this, because
clients connect via the ORPort by default. (Default: 1)
> Fallback directory mirrors must have a DirPort, and we'd only think about
> changing that when:
> * all recommended relay versions are 0.2.8 and later, and
> * relays no longer fetch documents using the DirPort (so maybe never).
>
> All relays running any Tor version will continue to use the IPv4 DirPort to
> fetch consensuses from other relays.
>
> So we haven't obsoleted the IPv4 DirPort yet. We've just made sure that
> clients fetch directory documents over an encrypted channel.
Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)
teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B
ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n
xmpp: teor at torproject dot org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL:
<http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160808/b29f3270/attachment-0001.sig>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 11:53:00 +0000
From: nusenu <nus...@openmailbox.org>
To: tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] [PATCH] debian package upgrade restart issue
Message-ID: <14e8de2a-577d-6498-e976-0002545b5...@openmailbox.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> When upgrading, all running tor instances are stopped (not restarted, as
>> expected)
>
> This might be your root-cause as well?
>
> https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor/issues/72
>
> I'm generating instance names based on IP addresses_ORport (so they
> contain "." and "_") and are therefore filtered by the generator.
>
> Is it acceptable to add "." and "_" to the whitelist?
>
> (patches attached)
Based on the output of 'systemd-escape' (a tool that escapes strings for
use in unit names) it is safe to use "." and "_" in unit names.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20160808/73daa746/attachment-0001.sig>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
------------------------------
End of tor-relays Digest, Vol 67, Issue 22
******************************************
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
