Re: [tor-relays] Simplifying ExoneraTor

[josh@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

> On 7 Jul 2015, at 07:48, Karsten Loesing <karsten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 07/07/15 03:45, teor wrote:
>> 
>>>> On 7 Jul 2015, at 09:46 , josh@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> From the perspective of someone investigating abuse, I think
>>>> it's important that 'not an exit relay' means 'not capable of
>>>> exiting on any port at all'. Ergo I think your option c) is the
>>>> way to go.
>>> 
>>> I also think this (c) is the best option. I agree that it's
>>> important to be able to determine, from an investigatory
>>> perspective, whether or not a relay was capable of exiting on any
>>> port.
> 
> Okay, let's do c).
> 
>> And, if we are going to implement "Exit" as any port, it should
>> also be *any* IP, not just an IPv4 /8 as in the Ext flag
>> definition.
> 
> For c), we'd just check if there's a "p reject 1-65535" line or not.
> 

I think this is a perfectly OK way of doing this considering the use case. 

> Here's the updated design mockup:
> 
> https://people.torproject.org/~karsten/volatile/exonerator-mockup/

Looks great Karsten, good job!

Regards,

Joshua Lee Tucker
@tuckerwales
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays