[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Update to default exit policy

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Update to default exit policy
From: phobos@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 07:30:15 -0400
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:30:20 -0400
In-reply-to: <48BAB98D.40309@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <48A6DD45.1040509@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48AE8AA4.7000207@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48BAB98D.40309@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 04:32:29PM +0100, dawneysmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote 0.9K bytes in 29 lines about:
: >> reject *:465
: >> reject *:587
: So is there going to be a change to the default Exit Policy?

The unofficial answer is that we're not going to change the default exit
policy to open these ports, yet.  As an experiment, I've opened these
ports on my node to see what happens.  I believe we're also asking some
smart anti-spam people for their thoughts on the usage of these ports in
the wild.

-- 
Andrew

Prev by Author: Re: flash won't work with Tor enabled
Next by Author: Re: authority system clock troubles?
Previous by thread: Re: authority system clock troubles?
Next by thread: Ports 465/587 in exit policy (was Re: Update to default exit policy)
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread