On 28 Aug 2017, at 18:15, Linus Nordberg linus@torproject.org wrote:
teor teor2345@gmail.com wrote Sat, 26 Aug 2017 22:39:52 +1000:
So I can't see any reasons to keep running opt-ins.
Are we listing non-exits?
Yes. Non-exits and under-used exits are the best fallback directory mirrors, because they are under less load.
I suppose those might see a radical change in their "IP reputation" when they end up on the blocklists after the next ransomware attack. Exits are already in the lists.
Yes, there is a higher risk that a fallback will end up on one of these lists. But all public Tor relays are at risk of ending up on a list like this.
On 28 Aug 2017, at 19:34, Silvia [Hiro] hiro@torproject.org wrote:
On 26/08/17 15:44, nusenu wrote:
use ContactInfo as a way to collect the intention of relay operators to opt-in/opt-out of the fallback directory mirrors list.
This is a good idea, *if* we still think an opt-in is necessary.
Isn't that way to collect operator intentions also useful in opt-out mode? (instead of continuing to use emails) Or how do you plan to collect the opt-out info?
Why are emails preferred over other methods? Another options would be wrapping a script that ops can run to create a cyberpunk trac ticket and opt-out. This is probably easier than merging emails. But maybe we do not want to handle this through trac.
I'd be happy to help w/ that eventually, and the fallback script.
This is a good idea.
At the moment, I take emails sent to me or tor-relays, and turn them into trac comments or trac tickets. If we put it directly on trac, anyone could handle the ticket.
T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)
teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n ------------------------------------------------------------------------