I'd suggest sticking with the name 'Non-exit' relay rather than making up a new term ('Internal Relay') that nobody else uses. Unless you want to convince everybody that non-exit relay is a bad name and we should switch?
Sebastian had the same concern. We adopted the term "exit" and "non-exit" because we were describe ExitPolicy entries rather than relay roles. The term "non-exit" says... well, that you're not an exit but not what you are, which is providing interconnections between participants in the tor network.
Personally I think that we should be offering users the analogy that tor is a network of participants (users and middle hops) with exit points from that network out into the wider Internet. This gives a good, simple abstraction for why this last role produces abuse complaints and the former doesn't.
Though again, if I'm outnumbered on this then I'll go with the majority.
Your description of an exit relay may mislead people into thinking that it *only* handles exit traffic -- meaning it doesn't get connections from users.
True, though I don't think that we should try to include that in the description. Why do you think that this is an important detail for new relay operators to understand?
Does "Low Relaying Ports" mean 'try to bind to 80 and 443'? Perhaps that should be 'Listen on Popular Ports'? I guess it depends if your users know what 'Low' is and what it implies.
Very good idea - changed to "Use Popular Ports"
Or maybe it's better as a faq entry (to avoid "omg there are so many pages how was I ever supposed to find that one")?
I tried that for a while. Our faqs make bad landing pages and the trac urls are too long. As mentioned in my reply to Karsten I agree that this will need to become tpo pages, however I think my pages turned out very nicely so until there's tpo alternatives this doesn't strike me as a large concern.
In the comments at the very top, I'd suggest changing "restart tor" to "or restart tor", to make it clearer that any one of the three steps will accomplish the goal.
Good idea. Changed.
You might also want to change the comments on the Log and DirPortFrontPage lines so they show up before the config line, meaning you can actually read the comment.
The audience I had in mind for the comments were people hand editing the torrc, where those lines look fine (the confirmation dialog's width is only 58). Though I probably should add line wrapping...
Cheers! -Damian