Re: [tor-relays] Can you double check my exit policy for usefulness while minimizing complaints

[Nate Homier <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/09/2013 01:26 PM, Mike Perry wrote:
> Thus spake Nate Homier (tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> 
>> I was wondering if I have a good compromise between not allowing
>> BitTorrent and allowing enough ports to be useful.  Here's mine.
> 
> I think the better question is "Why do you think you should remove the
> ports you removed from the ReducedExitPolicy?"
> 
> If you can't answer that question, you should just use the
> ReducedExitPolicy.
> 
>> How does this compare with this policy located here:
>> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/ReducedExitPolicy
>>
>> Should I use the official Tor reduced policy or is mine good enough to
>> be useful while minimizing complaints.
> 
> If you're already going to run an exit, it is best to be as permissive
> as possible. It is a bad idea arbitrarily restrict the apps that people
> can use Tor for without very good reason. 
> 
> After you remove bittorrent, most of the abuse mail you'll get will be
> due to 80 and 443 anyway. There are also technical reasons to avoid
> having 1000 slightly different versions of the reduced exit policy.
> 
> Hence the reduced policy allows every app port that we could find in
> use, *except* bittorrent.
> 
Good argument.  I'll just use the official reduced policy.  I removed
the ports in an effort to block BitTorrent, but I see your point.

Nate

_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays