There's a huge difference between logging and making yourself liable for
"illegal" content.
My hat off to anyone who still dares to run an exit point. I was running 2, but until I am given at least some minimal control of whatever passes through (I don't want to see it, I don't want to sniff it - I just want to be able to filter out things which don't deserve to pass through tor). I am all for enabling people to read and write without censorship (imho a true democracy), but I don't see myself extending this to smut and warez.Meanwhile, you're providing the same inconvenience to "legitimate"
viewers of "legal" and "moral" content, who may be less technically
adept, encouraging them to avoid Tor and risk prosecution for their
"legitimate" activities in their "oppressive" countries.
Still happens. During the test of this layout I ran across a node that was redirecting <nickname>.exit to verycurious.com.I don't think it's right for Tor to break other people's connections, or
to behave differently. We've had issues in the past discussed on this
list where people have been running Tor exits using alternate DNS
networks, or on ISPs which redirect NXDOMAINs to holding pages.
And I'be happy to donate my bandwidth again to the project.As others have mentioned, if it were possible for your Tor node to
advertise what it was blocking, so users' connections could
automatically route around your exit node if they're going to somewhere
your filter deems inappropriate, it'd be less of a concern for the
network overall.
On the other hand this filtering might encourage more people to start up exit points - and end up speeding up tor.However, you'd then have the problem that the exit nodes whose operators choose not to attempt to filter "illegal" content will end up routing proportionally more traffic, which makes balancing the network harder.