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

Re: another reason to keep ExcludeNodes

I'm with Bennett on this.  Taking away ExcludeNodes is essentially taking power and choice from tor users.

Always always always default towards providing more choice and power to users, not less.  In any case, as indicated, reporting bad nodes is not exclusive of ExcludeNodes.  ExcludeNodes is effective immediately.  Reporting a bad node takes time for a response.  Allow us to exclude the nodes we wish to exclude NOW, not after some period of time after reporting for something to be done.


On Tuesday 17 February 2009 14:05:09 Scott Bennett wrote:
>      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.

"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics."

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.