<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Yes, but are all guard and bridge relays configured like this?</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Maybe this should be a requirement for running a guard or bridge relay for this reason.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>What does everyone think?</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:matthew@glennon.online">Matthew Glennon</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Friday, June 22, 2018 5:18 AM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org">tor-relays@lists.torproject.org</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [tor-relays] Prepping bridges for censorship</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>This is the reasoning I go with for using 443/80.</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 8:11 AM Martin Kepplinger <<a href="mailto:martink@posteo.de">martink@posteo.de</a>> wrote:</p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>Am 21.06.2018 21:48 schrieb Keifer Bly:<br>> Hi,<br>> <br>> So I had a thought. It seems like a lot of the relays run off of<br>> various port numbers (of course). However if all of the relays and<br>> bridges are running off of various port numbers (ie 9001, 10000,<br>> etc.), couldn’t this stop censored users (who’s isp or local firewall<br>> only allows certain ports like 80 and 443) from being able to connect<br>> to the tor network even when using bridges due to the port that the<br>> bridge of guard relay being run on a port number that is blocked by<br>> the isp or local firewall?<br>> <br>> Just a thought.<br><br>Sure, just like for guard relays, for bridges it makes sense to <br>configure<br>ORPort to be 443 or 80, to be reachable from behind messy firewalls.<br><br> martin<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>tor-relays mailing list<br><a href="mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org" target="_blank">tor-relays@lists.torproject.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays" target="_blank">https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays</a></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- </p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Matthew Glennon</p><div><p class=MsoNormal>matthew@glennon.online</p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>PGP Signing Available Upon Request<br><a href="https://keybase.io/crazysane">https://keybase.io/crazysane</a></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>