<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<BR>Hash:
SHA1</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"I am not sure what is meant by "effective
deterrent" here. Does<BR>this<BR>mean you guys would like to deter windows
users from running servers?<BR> Or deter windows users
period?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> It means neither, because you've
kind of gotten it sideways.<BR> What was meant by my comments
was that the REASON you already<BR>don't see many W32 Tor servers is because
everyone who tries to run<BR>them (or nearly everyone, anyway) is having
problems KEEPING them<BR>running (if they can get them to run at
all).<BR> It has absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with
"restricting"<BR>anyone (in this case, all W32 users") from the Tor net or
from<BR>running servers - although I would like to bring out myself that
this<BR>may be the Tor developers only alternative (assuming W32 users can
be<BR>identified and "blocked" at all) if W32 users overload the
existing<BR>nodes, or bring about the possibility of government interference
due<BR>to W32 (or others', of course) use of the Tor network
for<BR>file-sharing.<BR> Hope that makes sense now.
Pete</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<BR>Version: PGP
8.1</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>iQA/AwUBQg5DJe2XOXeC4wlcEQKeLQCeOKssn4BT9Bf+zFHUDTEMTX2aVykAoKTy<BR>BhmoQfGwimF/ConioWEA4zbW<BR>=CtnJ<BR>-----END
PGP SIGNATURE-----<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>