On 17. Sep 2018, at 21:24, grarpamp grarpamp@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/17/18, niftybunny abuse@to-surf-and-protect.net wrote:
[cost, cost, cost]
freedom is a profitable business model.
We charge double and up rates to ignore and manage everything, short of legal process served, with you on point in role until you're not. Exits, torrents, gaming, IRC, shells, free speech, social nets, researchers, political sites, any legal business... all fine... bring it. Who's in?
So a bulletproof light data center?
If you have a few millions, enjoy! I am too poor for this.
reputation costs
So these ISPs get a bad reputation mark on the list of bad isp's, on forums, on lists, etc.
No, they don’t. We (the Tor people) are a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction. Nobody really cares about us.
Opinion: RIMU hosting sucks. Why: Because they refuse to host legal exits, or state / negotiate any upstream terms regarding them. Changepoint: When they do either or both of those.
There, that should search rank before long.
Its not about the legal status of Tor. Its about the workload. How many websites do you know which generates mass abuse mails because of botnets?
They have 1 Million websites hosted, who cares about 2-3 people complaining they do not host Tor exists?
If that was an ISP's ratio they'd have much bigger things to deal with, and efficiences in dealing with them, than to care about banning a handful of exit customers.
See above. A “normal” website is small, don’t eat much traffic or CPU load and will not generate mass abuse mails at all. And the demand is there. We have a few 1000 Tor nodes and we have a billion?! or so websites. If I were a company, what would I choose?
Absent prohibition in law or upstream contract, most ISP's banning such things simply haven't done much to develop and...
Explore the possible.
tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays