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

Re: BetterPrivacy - necessary?

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: BetterPrivacy - necessary?
From: Matthew <pumpkin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:29:48 +0100
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:35:01 -0400
In-reply-to: <4CA41694.6060700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4CA38336.8090105@xxxxxxxxx> <4CA41694.6060700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

 IMHO its important to suppress active content (Flash, ActiveX,

Silverlight, JavaScript etc.) and other junk and therefor I prefer
'Privoxy' [1] instead of Polipo.

I concur but doesn't TorButton do all this suppression?

That said: what was the rationale in moving from Privoxy to Polipo? Did ithappen because TorButton became standard?

***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: BetterPrivacy - necessary?
  - From: andrew
- Re: BetterPrivacy - necessary?
  - From: Robert Ransom

Prev by Author: Re: Tor Browser Bundle for Mac OS X released
Next by Author: DNS issue: Tor works great but VPNs do not - why?
Previous by thread: Tor 0.2.2.17-alpha is out
Next by thread: Re: BetterPrivacy - necessary?
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread