Re: [tor-relays] Leaseweb exit relay notice

[tor@xxxxxxx]

On 05/25/2015 08:17 PM, Rejo Zenger wrote:

> ++ 25/05/15 12:48 -0400 - tor@xxxxxxx:
>>
>> A lot of trouble would be prevented for exit node operators if, 
when they
>> brought their relays up for the first time, they ensured that the 
exit policy
>> rejected port 25. Even if they desire to run as unrestricted a 
relay as
>> possible, in my experience, that one really should be rejected. It 
is the
>
> Some (or most or even all) of the Leaseweb nodes didn't forward 
port 25.
> So, alltough you advice is a good one, it's not applicable to some 
(or
> most or even all) of the nodes that are discussed in this thread.
>

I'd be curious to know what this checker says about the IP address 
that ultimately got this ISPs attention: 
http://mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx

I run 2 fast exits with only ports 25 and 465 rejected. I find that 
the IPs are in some expected lists that target Tor, plus barracuda and 
spamhaus-zen. But not a gigantic pile of RBLs like was being 
described. No sorbs, no spamcop, no uceprotect. Nothing like a real 
spamming box.

Doing nothing on email ports but still ending up on a meaningful 
number of RBLs doesn't sound right. Maybe all it took to piss the ISP 
off was for one of them to do it.






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