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

Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version

To: tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
From: Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:11:35 +0200
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 12:11:53 -0400
In-reply-to: <CADMpQOfVzXsWGj+ipkRQ0JT8y-a-rO72LJbzcNCKZ9nA2zN2nA@mail.gmail.com>
List-archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/>
List-help: <mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-id: "support and questions about running Tor relays \(exit, non-exit, bridge\)" <tor-relays.lists.torproject.org>
List-post: <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays>, <mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-relays>, <mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <CAAcC93smVR-WPFNEaHQdAA60AVv_TRkM9uNNGRaee8G2HC0K_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAAcC93vsx8M1VdiND8B+7-S3QPQbkk9HjYnvb+oTts5Ww=r7rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAcC93uV_6jixyWuCvzUHkh5N=O0EZPOWTAVkP0ZQCOWmfw8Fw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAcC93tmwR2j3KReP_=FzZSYRPCJPYODJTWn0gZGrYzQbdABmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAcC93su3SDRb+9jzzpNvbyFLBMbHYsNHCf9X3uavWTxuoXWVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAcC93saxvHZH28RboYOUTjV+3t4s5QQZmWQDK3p4zKKiU0HCQ@mail.gmail.com> <nVD3bXK0typSzNFT9hZcFSoMOI4UvsNA_N9NSsonnl6UFCQsJ8R3QrQW1FAhe_Q-z9580zIaNtV1EipFDYi-UCREzcAgVrcYOTCdIHlskJc=@anondroid.com> <65977ee7-05a2-888b-98e2-44a38a0fb0ee@riseup.net> <CAAcC93vp0Keo8ywwSgAKk+DkHTa8-jnp4+WGtu-s-P=CaQLX2A@mail.gmail.com> <CADMpQOfVzXsWGj+ipkRQ0JT8y-a-rO72LJbzcNCKZ9nA2zN2nA@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-to: tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: "tor-relays" <tor-relays-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 08/17/2017 04:24 PM, Chuck McAndrew wrote:
> Uptime used to be something to brag about. Now it just means you aren't
> regularly updating.
+1

I do usually follow the vanilla stable kernel - meaning my uptime isn't bigger than 2 weeks since that.

- -- 
Toralf
PGP C4EACDDE 0076E94E
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iI0EAREIADUWIQQaN2+ZSp0CbxPiTc/E6s3eAHbpTgUCWZXAMxccdG9yYWxmLmZv
ZXJzdGVyQGdteC5kZQAKCRDE6s3eAHbpTkFdAP9F3POPsg83GS4edr5NLOV9kEcX
EUP0rQJuR/I109SGlAD/eRucOWT/1+fuEOWtG/2Q3MBx9AFgbnL24HwKOSXiWg4=
=83Z1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
  - From: Keepyourprivacy

References:
- [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
  - From: K. Besig
- Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
  - From: tor
- Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
  - From: Petrusko
- Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
  - From: K. Besig
- Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
  - From: Chuck McAndrew

Prev by Author: [tor-relays] blocking >1 connections per ip address onto Tor DirPort
Next by Author: [tor-relays] alternating consensus weight
Previous by thread: Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
Next by thread: Re: [tor-relays] Relay uptime versus outdated Tor version
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread