Scott Bennett wrote:
> Maybe "Curious Kid", rather than "Thoughtful,
> Responsible Adult" is a totally appropriate moniker.
Just for the record, luser and I are two different people. I apologize
for my previously ambiguous method of quoting. I will now use greater
than signs to make it more clear. No harm, no foul.
luser wrote:
> i suggest this is the end of it.
I am very interested in your point of view. Feel free to email me privately if you prefer.
luser wrote:
> pop3 access from government and/or private companies will never be
> routed through tor
> i believe this to be a fair assumption.
Tor was originally created for the United States government. Why would you assume that people from the government or private companies would never route POP3 traffic through Tor? How is this assumption related at all to the issue of authorized service use?
As for your method, if a mail host wants to prohibit Tor they can simply run Tor and ban the IP addresses of all the exit nodes in the network. They could also monitor accounts accessed via that list for signs of what they consider to be abuse. Your way is for a mail host to visit your blog, then compare
your blog entries to their accounts to see if there is a match. Doing this would give them a tiny fraction of potential Tor users because you only operate one exit node out of many. It is less efficient by far.
It also alerts outsiders to certain email accounts that are being accessed through Tor. If an outsider can link an email account to a specific person, then that individual could be subject to bad consequences as a result.
The best to all,