Re: [tor-relays] Sitevalley is no longer Tor-friendly

Subject: Re: [tor-relays] Sitevalley is no longer Tor-friendly

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:27:50 -0400

Delivery-date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:28:07 -0400

Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=AGlC6J3ZYwCYcSy9475G/WX1tnC4R1rqcoGVQRXfuYg=; b=cxPQ4NbkTMer92Xid/pepzQXLhhn75NObQ1xyPSfYqQzjD3SyFSzBnxNSw1Dk8gNAz 7bUp/zu4+HytoPeleRsWz9aLFzvAZpL5x8ObLSuMiFYwXvuo/E9rvFNBUvywZHSxFxIM K//GHC3gF9LJOv+tpkrXCnkAd1bbghtyTHVO2LrWAqIQ0kPUO3KyLfBcH7ZWthW5hqgn rbGc4eM/KF8HjO+mJkur5cJuTS6NOLMK4T03S0oie0zl/rWilTV4yilpWTwRAEo0keRS q6zvM3a9bCBOX/MQ1w5Vya8luquVs1O3PCy7s0z7PCGROj4CFRHNuzivApC1lpdow0zQ WQVw==

In-reply-to: <20130718165144.72e0054e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

List-archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/>

List-help: <mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>

List-id: "support and questions about running Tor relays \(exit, non-exit, bridge\)" <tor-relays.lists.torproject.org>

List-post: <mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org>

List-subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays>, <mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>

List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-relays>, <mailto:tor-relays-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>

References: <CA+cU71n55f039e4A61QCkNuUNMYmvGQX+NCzW8ZfHiVxjstjHA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130718165144.72e0054e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Reply-to: tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sender: "tor-relays" <tor-relays-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

That stinks.

Linode has the same policy WRT exit relays.Â

If they get too many abuse complaints, they ask you to stop running a relay. ÂThe way US law is structured, I can't actually blame them for this.

However they don't care if you're running a middle node. Your bandwidth/VPS, your call. Â A *lot* of people run bridge nodes there, myself included.

-Chris

(Running an exit relay in the US cost effectively seems quite difficult)

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:51 AM, mick <mbm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:49:46 -0400
Tom Ritter <tom@xxxxxxxxx> allegedly wrote:

> Sending this out, as I suspect I am not the only person running a node
> on SiteValley, as they have pretty good bandwidth for pretty cheap.
>
> I had inquired in the beginning if they allowed Tor, and they said
> yes, but if we get too many abuse complaints we'll shut it down. ÂSo
> maybe 4 or 5 abuse complaints later they did indeed give me the
> ultimatum to shut it down or get shut down. ÂSo I made them give me a
> new IP address, and made it into a middle node. Â(The new IP was
> because I was thinking of making it a bridge.)

Hmm. Pretty crummy AUP. And /very/ crummy treatment of a customer.

I wonder if we are going to see more of this sort of thing now. I
think the tor network needs greater geographic diversity.

Mick

---------------------------------------------------------------------

ÂMick Morgan
Âgpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B Â72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312
Âhttp://baldric.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--
Christopher Patti - Geek At Large | GTalk: cpatti@xxxxxxxxx | AIM: chrisfeohpatti | P: (260) 54PATTI
"Technology challenges art, art inspires technology." - John Lasseter, Pixar

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