Moritz Bartl schreef op 2013-04-11 09:48:
On 10.04.2013 23:42, theo@xxxxxxxx wrote:It sounds very handy to use the Reduced Exit Policy. But if we _all_ dothat there will be too little exits for users who want to connect to'strainge' ports. That way they get less anonyimity because they can'tchoose from hundreds of exits. In general it is best practice to block/reduce as little traffic as possible. Than we can guarantee enough diversity for everyone, even those people using exotic applications/protocols.I totally agree. That's why our relays allow every port except 25. But,in the event that DMCA complaints scare away the ISP (or the exit operator), they should go for the reduced exit policy (and look for abetter ISP), instead of randomly dropping packets or otherwise filteringtraffic, which is just mean (and probably illegal).
Ok. I can also agree with that it is unwanted to drop 'random' packages. But if it is sufficient to stop the Bittorrent complaints I myself would
prefer that above setting the Reduced Exit Policy. I am not an expert on the legal part of the packet dropping - I don't think you can get any RL trouble by it. But it is true that if we block certain sites/IP-addresses we don't have an excuse anymore why we did/will not do the same for some other 'unwanted' sites. If we want to avoid the packet-dropping problem: We could also reject the IP-addresses of those sites with torrc. What is your opinion about that Moritz? And, would it ok for the authorities and users with little bandwith if I reject ~100 ip-adresses? (Not that I am going to) _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays