On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 20:40 -0500, Josh wrote:
> Brian Puccio <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Just to play devil's advocate, hosts are assigned IPs in
> > blocks, and keeping their IPs off things like blacklists is
> > something they should take seriously. I'd hate to rent a
> > dedicated server only to find out that the last guy who had my
> > IP was a big time spammer or got banned from major IRC networks
> > or something and that the IP is blacklisted a dozen ways from
> > Sunday. So I can understand where they come from with respect
> > to trying to keep certain content off their network.
>
> I agree with you, but when I say "tor friendly", I mean "willing
> to listen to me when I try to explain what the situation is". I
> had a lot of trouble trying to convince them that my host was not
> part of a bot network, and also had trouble trying to find out
> what the destination port specified in the abuse report was.
> Granted, they never turned off my service through the whole
> thing, but it just seemed inflexible.
Ah, that I understand. My host sent me an email regarding certain
activities, I explained that I had extra bandwidth and was using it to
run Tor. They took a look at the Tor site and said "run Tor, but please
come up with a better exit policy (we'd prefer if you weren't an exit
node at all)."
--
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
GPG Key ID 0xBBD2401F
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part