[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: I <beatthebastards@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:14:38 -0800
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:14:49 -0500
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; d=inbox.com; s=s1; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=VY4DG2MPKIkPJ7B9W+BprcyyIsliJlQTsFux9AoVAHA=; b=EepemtXe5QK5iOlnw5g4iaMOngEaXeM9scDfx2wTF1sNhYyomMXUvwo76n5UUKIita0P ADNX0huFQlR7OcJTehPcoqXPaCRMDZ5HeOJo/uqvEO4XA1nIAm2Tw43FCmYtLP5P6T167r PdIFqGROkKhABXGYkq9Gs8oKKxrVDGOa0=
Domainkey-signature: q=dns; a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=inbox.com; s=s1; h=mime-version:date:message-id:from:subject:to:content-type; b=gdq8pCeVnZ+KQMJ24xfKNzPSe4nRHCa8TWH0SM0cvSVSV9MORFyGmceZmbBGCji82RDr eU5wgDiAUvTbgx9HdnIbSfR329CzLu65ksqp+yDkndCUM0JJGZQDr+kJaW9xVOWeMTLDrA pV+hy0XNs30q8W/LyNOtuvJ4OpVgcP1Hs=
In-reply-to: <7613478.XvWolBhgRM@vostok>
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: <2009109.gdr2uou2iq@e9a4bfs47> <cahzk5wckx=s0vqkrwzbmp15f2cbnt3g=9qsczuvyqpmf=voa+g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131104091054.ga31806@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: "tor-relays" <tor-relays-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

All,

"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. :)
Parity.Boy"

That's on the right track.  
If running a non-exit relay were clearly separated from running an exit one in everyone's minds 'running Tor' would not be one thing to wholly reject.

The terms need change to make the three states clear.

Tor for browsing - using the network
Tor relaying     - being a benign part of and expanding the network
Tor exiting      - from the network to the wider internet

Robert

____________________________________________________________
GET FREE SMILEYS FOR YOUR IM & EMAIL - Learn more at http://www.inbox.com/smileys
Works with AIMÂ, MSNÂ Messenger, Yahoo!Â Messenger, ICQÂ, Google Talkâ and most webmails


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

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

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: Re: [tor-relays] Is there any reason to keep the default exit policy?
Next by thread: Re: [tor-relays] max TCP interruption before Tor circuit teardown?
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread