<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Steve, you can open sockets and send data down them natively in Gecko-based apps... and the XPCOM components are scriptable, so you don't have to write any C/C++. So, there's no need to write an command-line program to send the plaintext down the socket (only to launch it from Torpark). Let me know if you need pointers.<br><br>-eric<br><br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: Arrakistor <arrakistor@gmail.com><br>To: Roger Dingledine <or-talk@freehaven.net><br>Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2006 11:37:17 PM<br>Subject: Re[2]: Tor Question<br><br><div>Roger,<br><br>Okay, so i COULD send the plaintext signal to the control port
and<br>have success under win32. I thought you said this, but questioned my<br>memory once i read the code.<br><br>The reason I ask about winking nodes is that I added a button to kill<br>the tor process. When torpark notices that there is no longer a<br>tor.exe process, it restarts it. Occasionally the tor process would<br>instantly exit for some reason, too infrequent/inconsistent to tell<br>everyone to log, but frequent enough to be an annoyance. The upshot is<br>that if you want to flush your tor circuit, you can simply click a<br>button on the toolbar and it gets you a new circuit. I did this<br>because often a user will be surfing and circuit fails for one
reason<br>or another and they have to shut down and restart the browser to get a<br>new circuit. Because the process is so dirty, I am worried about how<br>it may affect the tor network.<br><br>I still have yet to heavily research making torpark actually talk with<br>tor.exe instead of kicking it around. I wonder if it is possible to<br>pipe these plaintexts directly to the controlport with some command<br>line program.<br><br>Regards,<br> Arrakistor<br><br>Tuesday, August 1, 2006, 10:11:59 PM, you wrote:<br><br>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 10:02:57PM -0500, Arrakistor wrote:<br>>> I have a question. I noticed in some code that it said if tor is<br>>> running on a win32 system, to disable signals. So even if I sent<br>>>
signals like sighup to the process, it wouldn't be listening. Is this<br>>> true?<br><br>> Correct. Windows doesn't have signals, so there is no concept of sending<br>> a sighup to a Windows process.<br><br>> We fake this by letting you connect on the controlport and send the string<br>> "signal hup", aka "signal reload". Then Tor behaves as though you just<br>> sent it a unix-style signal.<br><br>>> Also, what kind of damage does it do to the tor network for a node to<br>>> just instantly disappear without notifying the network?<br><br>> Any circuit that's currently using that node breaks. So if a user has a<br>> long-term IRC or IM connection on that circuit, she gets disconnected.<br>> Tor will automatically recover and build new circuits, but the application<br>> will have to reconnect over the new circuit.<br><br>> We try to tolerate nodes that appear and disappear frequently, by avoiding<br>>
them when building circuits for destination ports that we expect will<br>> want high uptime: see LongLivedPorts in your manual page. After all,<br>> servers will have to disappear and reappear periodically.<br><br>> But if they aren't online very long, new clients won't have time to hear<br>> about them from the directories, so we won't be able to make good use<br>> of them. This is another item on our list of hard things that ought to<br>> be fixed. :)<br><br>> Why do you ask?<br><br>> --Roger<br><br></div></div><br></div></div></body></html>