[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposal idea: User path configuration
- To: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Proposal idea: User path configuration
- From: Christian Fromme <kaner@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:32:06 +0100
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-dev-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 04:32:18 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=kQbLRn8hltbgJJ3RzoMUaTuYTAABdUJZ9thxMI5aWrk=; b=hKC0qTmdT+iPHNvY7KHOjI2atZz90xjqw2+VqxYo0D6jmYDdurP+KfDp7+ejyTKhGg 1YjcUTNvlfZoWGzJtdtvUZmT2Wx0phL4jE75R66Ex7YelDvcW/syPb+FBrYce5q+yJen btYCsh2RB5aaYkYKufSVevoR8SsdheNxJd9UA=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=NIC1QwFcfwrpXxC3B0obm6rEtYnZZ6q0sYyVpKCyKavfridrlERSZBbp1L56cnogng J2LjVfYbs7n8nbvFxravrzYGADi4UQbjVttDeDMlAxcSNBn5pSprLtt3SwH5fRh4CiPJ w6MhTnonzmcSt9aye3IoS4JL+oRAH6OuADkdo=
- In-reply-to: <20100310043223.GI3407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <69B9DF56-4161-45FA-8CC7-4C8566CE633E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100310043223.GI3407@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Roger Dingledine <arma@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think we should work out the situations where strictnodes is needed,
> and the situations where we want to honor the config option even without
> strictnodes 1.
>
> For example, if you set entrynodes or exitnodes, then imo you should get
> one of the nodes you specified, or fail if none work. You asked for it,
> you get it. Similarly, if you set Excludenodes or excludeexitnodes, I
> think that should trump any entrynodes or exitnodes you set. And if you
> exclude everything that's possible, then you fail to make a circuit. It's
> what you asked for. That's pretty much what I built in 0.2.2.7-alpha
> (though I haven't finished the "excluding" part).
This sounds like we rather want an option "RelaxStrictNodesOnConflict
1" for the user to explicitly relax the rules if he knows what he's
doing. Default should be 0. At least I find that more intuitive.
Best,
C