On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Andrew Lewman andrew@torproject.is wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:08:36 +0530 Sathyanarayanan Gunasekaran gsathya@torproject.org wrote:
In general, these look great. Some nitpicking items:
Here are the .htmls - https://people.torproject.org/~gsathya/html/index.html
- The majority of users aren't going to know which obfsproxy browser
they're using. I understand the difference, but to make a decision, we should only ship one obfsTBB and assume everyone is using it as a target for this site. I'm guessing we just call the obfsproxy-flashproxy-tbb as obfsTBB and move forward with it.
The correct email address is bridges@bridges.torproject.org
I think we should scrap "normal bridges" and only promoted obfuscated
bridges. In the bigger picture, "normal bridges" are already subject to DPI attack and blocked in many places in the world based on Tor's network signature alone. All bridges should be obfsproxy bridges.
I think we'll need to see larger numbers of bridges providing obfsproxy transports before considering these the only bridges we hand out. I believe we have about 5-10x as many "normal" bridges as "obfs" bridges, so I would be hesitant to have all the users of normal bridges abruptly switch over to the limited set of obfs bridges at this point...
But I do agree that every bridge should also be an obfs bridge.
--Aaron
-- Andrew http://tpo.is/contact pgp 0x6B4D6475 _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev