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

Re: two unseemly tor behaviors

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: two unseemly tor behaviors
From: "Jonathan D. Proulx" <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 21:26:29 -0400
Cc: phobos@xxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:26:40 -0400
In-reply-to: <200707032251.l63MpEVX003777@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200707032251.l63MpEVX003777@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 05:51:14PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote:

:     Do you think that they prefer to have their server crash, rather than
:to issue an error message and continue operations?  

Yes.  If I restart a service I want to be sure it restarted not have
to go check and see if it really did what I asked.

:And that such behavior
:benefits the worldwide community of tor users?

No, but if you verify your config before the HUP this won't happen.
Apache has a similar check config function, it's smart practice.

-Jon

References:
- Re: two unseemly tor behaviors
  - From: Scott Bennett

Prev by Author: Re: Windows XP SP2 + Tor = instant crashes
Next by Author: Re: Blocking child pornography exits
Previous by thread: Re: two unseemly tor behaviors
Next by thread: RE: Choose exitnodes in country x
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread