Re: [tor-relays] Aggressive abuse report

[Sec INT <sec.int9@xxxxxxxxx>]

If its an exit just use the reduced reduced exit policy - I dont get any abuse complaints apart from those heroes at webiron

Cheers
Mark B
Snaptor.co.uk (non commercial)


> On 14 Mar 2017, at 14:36, Juuso Lapinlampi <wub@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 02:17:14PM +0100, Moritz Bartl wrote:
>> about it" might not be the best argument here either: I suggest you
>> block the destination IP address(es) for some weeks via ExitPolicy, let
> 
> My concern with this is the liability on operator. In Finland (and
> Europe?), the limited liability provisions have three criteria for
> service/network providers (Tietoyhteiskuntakaari 7.11.2014/917, 182 §
> Vastuuvapaus tiedonsiirto- ja verkkoyhteyspalveluissa):
> 
> 1. You're not the one initiating the network transfer;
> 2. You're not selecting the recipient; and
> 3. You don't select or modify the data to be transferred.
> 
> I believe FICORA has advised blocking ports as necessary for security
> reasons (e.g. port 25) is fine, but when it's being extended to
> IP-address and/or port combinations, that's where it starts becoming
> gray (in regards to #2).
> 
> So far, replying to every abuse complaint and giving advice how to block
> Tor using DNSBL or similar has worked for me. I can see it's probably
> not what original poster's ISP would like to hear to have the issue
> resolved, but it's less ambiguous on law and limited liability. Thus, I
> suggested looking into other more friendly ISPs.
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays