[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: Network status entries need a new Unnamed flag

To: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Proposal: Network status entries need a new Unnamed flag
From: Peter Palfrader <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:55:40 +0200
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-dev-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:55:50 -0400
In-reply-to: <20071009224419.GS20802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20071004150912.GN20802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20071009224419.GS20802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007, Roger Dingledine wrote:

> (This whole proposal is meant only for v3 dir flags; we shouldn't try
> to backport it to the v2 dir world.)

Can we still list the unnamed routers in the v2 status, even without an
unnamed flag?  Because if not and I enable auto-naming on tor26 I'll stop
listing about 150 routers for using names that are already taken.

See http://asteria.noreply.org/~weasel/tor-named-nicks

Peter
-- 
                           |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
      Peter Palfrader      | : :' :      The  universal
 http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `'      Operating System
                           |   `-    http://www.debian.org/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Proposal: Network status entries need a new Unnamed flag
  - From: Nick Mathewson

References:
- Proposal: Network status entries need a new Unnamed flag
  - From: Roger Dingledine
- Re: Proposal: Network status entries need a new Unnamed flag
  - From: Roger Dingledine

Prev by Author: Proposal: autonaming
Next by Author: Re: Proposal: Network status entries need a new Unnamed flag
Previous by thread: Re: Proposal: Network status entries need a new Unnamed flag
Next by thread: Re: Proposal: Network status entries need a new Unnamed flag
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread