>
References: <CALdaYd06o3HAm_p+C7Qn87FJJbBftEiEm1FMBs_dDf4PkNF5yA@???>
<20120217084250.GK32046@???>
<CAF8XF0evbC-wn+H0yO13GPPwzRrOBYHvEpoTUw5PCZwad4z=TQ@???>
<20120218064931.GT23380@???>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:04:37 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: EdpratAna0mIVQT24Pcx6IEGjXg
Message-ID: <CAF8XF0dhq0H4SEFC_QGH0eCY-TkRnUnzb=UFD-V2xdaSymc5kA@???>
From: Kai Hendry <hendry@???>
To: users@???
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Sat,
18 Feb 2012 08:04:44 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.215.48
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: kai.hendry@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd2.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low * trust * [209.85.215.48 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
* valid
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Tor Obsfucation
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:04:48 -0000
On 18 February 2012 14:49, Andy Smith <andy@???> wrote:
> =C2=A0browsers. It's probably easier for the non-technical person to
> =C2=A0understand and evaluate than knowing how to use a VPN provider and
> =C2=A0then find and pay for one.
The local computer shop dude in Tehran I'm told sets up normal
everyday people with a VPN.
> =C2=A0As you say the people you met with were geeks, so I'm not
> =C2=A0surprised they preferred something other than Tor. A working VPN
> =C2=A0would definitely be a lot more pleasant to use than Tor.
Tbh, I over stated geeks. They were just er.. Mac users. They don't
qualify, do they? :)
> - There's probably a worry that Iran may block the well-known VPN
> =C2=A0protocols and ports, and even well-known providers, but they can't
> =C2=A0really block all of Tor without blocking all of the Internet.
I still think Tor's use is overstated. A better approach I'd say if
people are keen on helping Iran is give them some decent satellite
Internet coverage.
Because in Iran, you can watch BBC news without too much difficulty
ove
