On 02 Nov (16:13:37), adrelanos wrote: > Hi David, > > adding .i2p support to torsocks is perfectly fine. It's a feature, not a > limitation. Who doesn't want to use it won't be annoyed by it. (Other > than man page and --help entry, but well, life is tough. :) > > Someone else already said on this list some time ago "since torsocks is > agnostic about a Tor or a random socks server, there is no point in > calling it torsocks". If it works fine with normal socks servers and you > are willing to support that, sure, why not rename it. That is not entirely true. The rewrite effort made it actually *more* Tor aware. Furthermore, there is some Tor specific SOCKS extension for DNS resolution (that might actually be the norm elsewhere...) but for now seems not that agnostic. So the goal of torsocks right now is *not* to be agnostic about Tor where for instance .onion support is quite tor-ish. But it does not mean we should not think of a better name *especially* in terms of usability where for most users "socks" does not mean anything. I guess this is why "usewithtor" and "torify" wrappers were created. And that would make more sense if i2p address support comes in. David > > I am very happy that you are taking the lead fixing torsocks so I think > you also should also be the one who may make such decisions. > > Cheers, > adrelanos > _______________________________________________ > tor-dev mailing list > tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev