On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:41:24PM -0500, Nik wrote:
3) Precedent - one of the most important issues they've brought up. They want to see that an exit node has been run successfully at other universities with minimal headaches. They're most interested in the setups that have worked for others, specific exit-policies and abuse-response procedures primarily.
Yes, this is definitely useful. I run an exit node at the University of Waterloo, using the standard reduced exit policy. We get about one complaint every 3-6 weeks, almost always auto-generated with no human at the other end to respond to. The main sticking point when switching from a middle to an exit node was in obtaining a non-university IP address, since apparently journal publishers just whitelist the university's IP block for subscription purposes, and we wouldn't want people coming out of our exit node to get access to those subscriptions. (Worse, no one at the university had a list of those subscriptions that we could just block with an exit policy. YMMV.) -- Ian Goldberg Associate Professor and University Research Chair Cheriton School of Computer Science University of Waterloo