Hi there, On 14 Dec 2014, at 20:06, Vlad Tsyrklevich <vlad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not against keeping some around, but this warning is unlikely to turn around the thousands that currently match this configuration--hopefully it'll just encourage future bridge operators to use a 'safer' configuration. The obfs4proxy README shows users how to set-up obfs4 running over port 443 which is probably the most desirable option: those users can evade network restrictions without enabling discovery by scanning. I really dislike warnings unless we absolutely need to have them, and this imo is in the category of "change the default, update the docs", especially because just changing the port is not a real solution in my book. Cheers Sebastian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev