[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: timeout with tor-resolve
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: timeout with tor-resolve
- From: Roger Dingledine <arma@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:42:59 -0400
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivery-date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:43:22 -0400
- In-reply-to: <424C5BA4.firstname.lastname@example.org>; from email@example.com on Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 10:20:52PM +0200
- References: <424C5BA4.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/220.127.116.11i
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 10:20:52PM +0200, Martin Balvers wrote:
> The last few days I was unable to browse at all while using Tor.
> As it turns out, a couple of fast nodes in the Netherlands have gone
> down, and I just happened to have them in my config file as EntryNode.
> If I tried to resolve an address with tor-resolve, it would timeout.
> After commenting out the EntryNode line, Tor was usable again (although
> it is very slow at the moment)
> I guess all the preferred entry nodes are tried first, even though they
> are down.
I'm not quite sure what your bug report here is. What behavior did you
expect, and how did the behavior you got differ from that? Is there
something we should fix in the Tor code?