[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: reconsidering default exit policy
Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
I have mixed feelings about the best default exit policy for TOR, which
is why I'm playing devil's advocate and making sure other views are
considered. But no software maker (or other service provider) should
ever feel justified in punishing their user, whether they have RTFM or
not. That is just bad business.
Admins however should also be expected to RTFM or suffer the
It helps us all if TOR is widely distributed. That means we should hope
it will be also run by those who don't know much about TOR, internet
workings, or usenet abuse, but who have extra bandwidth and want to
help. It also means there will probably be many people who aren't
native english speakers which adds an extra level of complexity to
RTFM. Letting people "suffer the consequences" because they didn't
understand to the same depth as the people on this list would be
Since we are asking people to donate resources, if they have problems
then we have problems. So by punishing them, we punish ourselves. For
that reason, I think the default exit policy should be chosen to
minimize the trouble caused to site operators. The more technically
able operators can RTFM and see how to widen their exit policy further.
How about this as a litmus test: will the vast majority of people on
this list be using the default exit policy as-is without any further
reject entries? If not, then I think it is not a good starting point
for new TOR server operators. We should eat our own dog food.
Personally, I would not use the default exit policy as currently
proposed without additional reject lines - concerning usenet abuse
through google's usenet proxy as the prime example..