[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: another reason to keep ExcludeNodes
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: another reason to keep ExcludeNodes
- From: Mitar <mmitar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:09:31 +0100
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:09:35 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vQDsnGHP7KFVK2rPicfz3SiheMkMKQQxTSQPCk6AEBo=; b=ATtaLay//CfFk9C6gVmvDoXT2ooUoDrURQ9M2qnJakw0iu94cl/IHT3IcXn/QkzRI3 p42FpfzTpPAHRXnKUyzgVcY4PRbOecPf586GhSwdvturMU6Y5aB9zziIOnyQ2UDwt43o UOk/o3o1uTfPPeDVWJCS6iQJ1+fYXFN7w6g8E=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=cEpdUzZwo5ZkRKIoAl58/fOYhk0bxjJ9fY4Q/Fb++yF+CYVfN0a9ZHop69W/80VeA9 GQiTKxoVN3IE9N3j3DtLXDSYYEqJGf5UJ6dVRJ7FK09YCtWmp7D1HBaAlMSJ/8UCY9dB 1S/zv+uhnvpIp441590oQSti2ESDH2QVSkhw8=
- In-reply-to: <200902172232.n1HMW9J3003198@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <200902172232.n1HMW9J3003198@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In the particular case I was describing, the node that was consistently
> appearing in the circuits that cut off files happened not to be an exit in
> any of the failure cases. IIRC, it was nearly always in a middleman position,
> though I think there was a day when it was an entry guard.
Middle node can change payload without next node noticing that? There
is not checksuming/signing in the process?
Mitar