[tor-dev] [tor-commits] [tor/master] Clarify who learns about ContactInfo.

[Nick Mathewson]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Roger Dingledine <arma at mit.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 01:45:26PM +0000, nickm at torproject.org wrote:
>> diff --git a/src/config/torrc.sample.in b/src/config/torrc.sample.in
>> index c667efc..78013c2 100644
>> --- a/src/config/torrc.sample.in
>> +++ b/src/config/torrc.sample.in
>> @@ -120,9 +120,12 @@
>>  ## is per month)
>>  #AccountingStart month 3 15:00
>>
>> -## Contact info to be published in the directory, so we can contact you
>> -## if your relay is misconfigured or something else goes wrong. Google
>> -## indexes this, so spammers might also collect it.
>> +## Administrative contact information for this relay or bridge. This line
>> +## can be used to contact you if your relay or bridge is misconfigured or
>> +## something else goes wrong. Note that we archive and publish all
>> +## descriptors containing these lines and that Google indexes them, so
>> +## spammers might also collect them. You may want to obscure the fact that
>> +## it's an email address and/or generate a new address for this purpose.
>>  #ContactInfo Random Person <nobody AT example dot com>
>>  ## You might also include your PGP or GPG fingerprint if you have one:
>>  #ContactInfo 0xFFFFFFFF Random Person <nobody AT example dot com>
>
> Hi Nick, Karsten,
>
> You've just changed the torrc.sample.in file, which will cause everybody
> who uses the deb and upgrades from Tor 0.2.4.17-rc to have to manually
> evaluate/adjust/replace their /etc/tor/torrc file.
>
> Are you sure you want to do this?
>
> It's not the end of the world here since the torrc.sample was last
> updated for Tor 0.2.4.3-alpha, so people upgrading from 0.2.3.x debs
> will already be affected.
>
> But I wonder if it's really worth hassling every deb user who will
> be upgrading from 0.2.4.x?
>
> In any case we should update the
> ## Last updated 12 September 2012 for Tor 0.2.4.3-alpha.
> line at the top of the file, so we can accurately predict who will be
> affected by changes like this in the future.

I'm fine either way, up to and including reverting the change for
0.2.4 and keeping it in 0.2.5.

What do you think, Karsten?
-- 
Nick