John Brooks wrote: > I think that ivvmm is slightly confused about the terminology here - > which is perfectly understandable. In the interest of clarity: > > A bridge is not handling general tor traffic; it's not put into the > directory. Bridges exist to assist people in countries that attempt to > block tor, by giving them a place to connect to that is not listed in > any tor directory. As no countries currently attempt to block tor (to my > knowledge), that is mostly a feature for when that day comes. This means > that bridges handle far less traffic and don't get used much at all > (currently). > > A relay is a normal server relaying data for the network, as entry, > middle, or exit. These are listed in the directories and chosen by the > clients as their circuit. Relays are very important; every relay added > increases anonymity and available bandwidth to the network. Relays *do > not* have to allow exit traffic - you can keep the ExitPolicy as > rejecting everything, and your relay will only handle entry and middle > node traffic (which avoids abuse issues). Exit and non-exit are both > very useful to the network. In my experience, a relay will use about as > much bandwidth as you let it use, which is a sign of how desperate the > network is for more of them. > > I *think* that what you're going for here is running a non-exit relay; > that is more useful to the network than a bridge (although bridges are > very good too, as roger mentioned), and not allowing exit traffic avoids > abuse and most legal issues. > > Sorry if this is redundant, I just wasn't certain that this was made > clear to you ;) > > - John Brooks > You've read my thoughts! Thanks for your explanation. Really thought that bridges are those servers in the middle, so it's clear now that they are not. Now going ExitPolicy reject *:* and sudo kill -SIGHUP $(ps -C tor -o pid=) Thanks everyone!
Description: OpenPGP digital signature