On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Ian Goldberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:iang@cs.uwaterloo.ca">iang@cs.uwaterloo.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:50:09PM +0000, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:<br>
> > Sounds like a plan. I prefer bridge by default, but we can discuss that<br>
> > later.<br>
> ><br>
> What's the rational there? While we certainly need more bridges, I'd like to<br>
> see an increase in relays and encourage more Friend of Friend bridge<br>
> sharing. We should include a bunch of common configs and make it easy to<br>
> setup. Also, a public relay will be much easier to help with in terms of<br>
> setup, I suspect.<br>
<br>
</div>Doesn't "make random people into public (middle-only) relays" have the<br>
(well maybe not "problem", but "issue"?) that when GFW blocks them, they<br>
(the random people who bought an Excito/etc.) won't be able to connect<br>
to anything in .cn any more? Although I don't _often_ connect to .cn<br>
domains, it seems unfortunate to effectively auto-ban these people from<br>
Chinese websites.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, it might. It depends on which part of the GFW you're connecting through. Also, I believe the same is true for public bridge nodes as well. The main difference is that the bridges may not be as useful as the relays and I suspect they will also be less easy to troubleshoot for reach-ability reasons.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In an ideal world, we'll write an enumeration of issues or benefits that arise from the different modes of helping.</div><div><br></div><div>All the best,</div><div>Jake</div></div>