[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-relays] Is there any reason to keep the default exit policy?

To: tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Is there any reason to keep the default exit policy?
From: Paritesh Boyeyoko <parity.boy@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:05:45 +0000
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 08:05:43 -0500
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=t2krxk1WXkqv9p1C+aTln2i4C8Wb9NRY554mq/ZDcVk=; b=ABEQJz/4AClJevAzq5X1UkFZmZlh0CxXrI2YKZ+IgwCaWXGXttquRlyG0Ae9sYbcLX q4f8MLjhbFw8Lkw4T/3oF6Ri1JtVa3xiPpz002Bb80vXHvAhB8RAb8rK0vCEBPmk6/SH Ts2aH0WMTcMYY/KyAo88s/a1nCB0mpF6IHNezBF63KV8xZCcFfTGqxiJGNrRjswsZhSp xD7OvU5cNZi2b2w2fwFNsU7siS11b+JUscsc6oQKB28C1ctEO82AF+IrAW/L1OE+i+pX 7XzQP8L/B6vm/CfKEOlOJg1r+FWtVRkf73cZR0PvdmKeBV9OZ13OG3uAHHQjH7PuX3uk OBJA==
In-reply-to: <20131104091054.GA31806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/>
List-help: <mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-id: "support and questions about running Tor relays \(exit, non-exit, bridge\)" <tor-relays.lists.torproject.org>
List-post: <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays>, <mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-relays>, <mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <cahzk5wckx=s0vqkrwzbmp15f2cbnt3g=9qsczuvyqpmf=voa+g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <2009109.gDR2UOu2iq@e9a4bfs47> <20131104091054.GA31806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: "tor-relays" <tor-relays-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.5.0-34-generic; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; )

On Monday 04 Nov 2013 04:10:55 Roger Dingledine wrote:

> Today's interactions with ISPs influence Tor's future viability. So if
> people are accidentally exit relays without knowing it, I worry as much
> about the damage to the ISP's view of Tor as I do about the temporary
> hassle for the operator.

Exactly this.  I recently made a list of Tor-tolerant VPS hosters, based on 
the offers available on Low End Box.  Out of the 14 I found, three in their AUP 
stipulated "no exit" and one would allow Tor relays of any kind on their US 
servers only.

So out of all of the companies I found on LEB, only 11 allowed "full" Tor 
support, with the others permitting "partial" support. I think more and more 
hosting and service providers are seeing Tor as a source of legal hassle and 
don't want to be bothered with it.

If Tor is made non-exit by default, it can be explained to the hosters that 
Tor out-of-the box will not bring any legal stress their way.  It may even 
encourage them to run a few relays themselves. :)

Best,
-- 
Parity
parity.boy@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [tor-relays] Is there any reason to keep the default exit policy?
  - From: I
- Re: [tor-relays] Is there any reason to keep the default exit policy?
  - From: Thomas Hand

References:
- Re: [tor-relays] Amazon abuse report
  - From: tor-admin
- [tor-relays] Is there any reason to keep the default exit policy?
  - From: Roger Dingledine

Prev by Author: Re: [tor-relays] Amazon abuse report
Next by Author: Re: [tor-relays] Traffic in port 9050 in a relay (denial of service attack?)
Previous by thread: [tor-relays] Is there any reason to keep the default exit policy?
Next by thread: Re: [tor-relays] Is there any reason to keep the default exit policy?
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread