Re: Tor a carrier for Botnet traffic?

[Freemor <freemor@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:38:42 -0500 (CDT)
Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


>      You raise a good point.  Nevertheless, *we* aren't the ones doing
> the banning, rather the ISPs are (e.g., Comcast in the U.S.), and the
> ISPs are certainly not going to ban Windows.
>      There's been quite a few times that, when I've called an ISP to
> try to get them to fix a problem on their end, I've been told that
> they don't support FreeBSD, which, of course, is irrelevant.  I don't
>...
[snip]

You bring up a good point Scott about the Tor website referring to Tor
as a server. The truth is that it is much closer to a router or proxy.
The problem as I see it however is that ISPs that have AUP against
servers usually include proxies as a no-no.. in fact I've seen some so
broad as to claim that using ping or trace-route are "hostile" and
grounds for disconnection.

So I agree that the wording on the Tor site probably should be changed.
I however doubt it will do much to convince errant ISPs. from what I
have seen the thing that sets off hostile attitudes by some ISPs (I'm
in Canada mind) is too much outbound traffic. This is especially true
for ISPs that consistently oversell their bandwidth. (a la Rogers).

Regards,
Freemor


-- 
freemor@xxxxxxxxxxx
freemor@xxxxxxxxx

This e-mail has been digitally signed with GnuPG - ( http://gnupg.org/ )

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature