Re: [tor-relays] new relays

[grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/30/13, Andrea Shepard <andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:08:34AM -0500, Jon Gardner wrote:
>> Then why have exit policies? Exit nodes regularly block "unwelcome"
>> traffic
>> like bittorrent, and there's only a slight functional difference between
>> that
>> and using a filter in front of the node to block things like porn
>
> There's a considerable functional difference: an exit policy is a defined
> list of specific hosts and ports to accept/reject, and it's advertised in
> the exit's descriptor.  Your client can just pick a different exit node
> if the connection it wants to make is not permitted by a given exit's
> policy.
> A "porn filter" is inherently fuzzy and unpredictable, so couldn't be
> implemented without breaking clients trying to use that node.  Filtering
> traffic other than as declared by your exit policy should and will get your
> exit the BadExit flag.


This is why we need to implement extended exit flags for exits that want
to run post-exit filtering/enhancement policies, say for example
  "noporn"
that way we can get all the religious groups dumping their tithes into
not just beaming reruns of the 700 club around the world, but a pile of
uber fast exits too.

And how about
 "novirus" delivered by microsoft
 "doublesyourcoins" propped up by the donations of fools
 "trusted" run by legit governments
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays