<div dir="ltr">It is firewalled. I should have said "connection attempts" in my first email.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Tora Tora Tora <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tor@allthatnet.com" target="_blank">tor@allthatnet.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On 02/28/2014 11:14 AM, Greg W wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Are you suggesting that the IP's making the connections are potentially<br>
exit nodes (they're not, I've checked) or that abuse email volume in<br>
general should be lowered regardless of the nature? Just trying to<br>
understand your sentiment here :)<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Why not firewall port 9050? If you need it for your own purposes, you can tunnel into your server. What's the point of allowing non-local connections on your Sock port?<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
tor-relays mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:tor-relays@lists.torproject.org" target="_blank">tor-relays@lists.torproject.<u></u>org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays" target="_blank">https://lists.torproject.org/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-<u></u>relays</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>