Re: another reason to keep ExcludeNodes

[Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

     On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:54:51 +0100 Mitar <mmitar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>     I just read Roger's message from July 2006 on playing down the use of
>> ExcludeNodes and maybe eventually eliminating it.  I encountered a reason
>> to use it not long ago that doesn't seem to have been mentioned.  I noticed
>> that certain image files that are frequently updated and that I look at many
>> times a day were getting truncated at random points in the files.  After a
>> little bit of investigation it turned out that one particular relay was
>> always in a circuit that truncated those files, so I added it to my
>> ExcludeNodes list.  And voila' complete images from then on.
>
>Would not it be better if you would report this node so that its
>problem can be fixed?
>
     Certainly, but that isn't possible when no valid contact information is
provided in the relay descriptor in the directory.  It also doesn't allow an
immediate solution to the problem for the user.  Notification and use of
ExcludeNodes are not mutually exclusive, after all.
     I have also excluded a number of nodes because some of their attributes
make me unwilling to trust their operators to be responsible tor operators.
Those assessments are, of course, my own opinion and are not to be imposed
upon anyone else via the mechanism of directory flags.  However, as the user,
I want to be able to avoid nodes that I don't want used for *my* circuits.
ExcludeNodes allows me to do that, the bug regarding entry guards
notwithstanding, and has no effect on tor's operation as a relay for other
users elsewhere.  That should be enough, it seems to me, to justify retaining
support for ExcludeNodes.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************