|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > October 2005 > what's with pinging?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
what's with pinging?
|
|
| George Orwell 2005-10-08, 5:49 pm |
| why the need for so much pinging? with 20 pingers sending 80 pings, two for each remailer, every 4 hours, that's a lot of pings. why clutter up each others' mailboxes? why eat up our bandwidth?
cover traffic? why can't each remailer generate dummy messages? a lot fewer dummy messages than the pingers generate should provide good cover if I am not mistaken.
the need for accurate information? why wouldn't the information from one or two dependable pingers be accurate enough?
| |
| George Orwell 2005-10-08, 5:49 pm |
| On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>why the need for so much pinging?
Reliable statistics.
>with 20 pingers sending 80 pings, two
>for each remailer, every 4 hours, that's a lot of pings. why clutter up
>each others' mailboxes?
No clutter.. and the whole thing is automated.
>why eat up our bandwidth?
It's not your bandwidth. Unless you're running a remailer. In which case,
XXXX off, eelbash.
>cover traffic?
That's one use.
>why can't each remailer generate dummy messages?
They do, in addition to the pings.
>a lot
>fewer dummy messages than the pingers generate should provide good cover
>if I am not mistaken.
Not only are you mistaken, but you are ill-informed, as well.
>
>the need for accurate information? why wouldn't the information from one
>or two dependable pingers be accurate enough?
<Talking very slowly, as if to a child>
Because each pinger can only "see" the network from it's own perspective.
One pinger may rate Dizum at 20% reliability for some technical reason, but
the other 19 pingers see it as fine.
The more data you have, the better decisions you can make.
|
|
|
|
|