On Tuesday 20 November 2007 21:34:16 you wrote: > > cached-routers and cached-routers.new are not the file names used in > 0.2.0.12-alpha, but rather cached-descriptors and cached-descriptors.new, > and in my original message, I wrote: > > -> I restarted my tor server a couple of hours ago, and since then, it > has ->been acting very peculiarly. Here are the notice-level log file > entries since ->startup. Note that I deleted cached-descriptors and > cached-descriptors.new ->after shutting down tor and before shutting down > the system several hours prior ->to this startup. > Ah, missed that. It looks like cached-routers is still a fallback though, so if it is still there it will get read. In fact, if cached-routers *was* still present that would explain why the address was noticeably out of date. > >occasion my own *guess* would be that tor is using the old IP stored > > there,= =20 > >especially since 18.104.22.168 was your address at one point: > >=20 > >http://www.google.com/search?hl=3Den&q=3Dmycroftsotherchild+22.214.171.124&b > >t= nG=3DSearch > Whoops, > Yes, the ISP has a limited list of IP addresses that it assigns, so > the same addresses do recur frequently. In this case, I noted, > > ->Nov 20 06:29:37.282 [notice] Now checking whether ORPort 126.96.36.199:995 > and DirPort 188.8.131.52:443 are reachable... (this may take up to 20 > minutes -- look for log messages indicating success) -> > -> Note that the above address was incorrect. The correct address > was, and ->still is, 184.108.40.206. It has not changed since before the > system was ->rebooted. > > >Whether it 's a good thing for Tor to just try the last known good > > address= =20 > >rather than figure it out all over again on the off-chance it may be out > > o= f=20 > >date, I don't know. > > I thought the point of specifying a host+domain name in the "Address " > line was to get tor to *look it up in the name server net*. > > >The tone of your comments below is unfair to Csaba. He was merely offering > > = a=20 > >friendly (and free) suggestion. No one would ever respond to anyone else > > on= =20 > >this list if that sort of thing was the default response. > > In that case, I apologize. I took offense at the comments that > appeared to ignore what I had written, while taking a very condescending > tone and assuming I hadn't done the obvious checking before posting. > Thanks for taking the point!
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.