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

Re: reconsidering default exit policy

Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:

Admins however should also be expected to RTFM or suffer the
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.

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 counter-productive.

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..