On 05/25/2015 08:17 PM, Rejo Zenger wrote:

++ 25/05/15 12:48 -0400 - tor@t-3.net:

...

A lot of trouble would be prevented for exit node operators if,

when they

...

brought their relays up for the first time, they ensured that the exit policy rejected port 25. Even if they desire to run as unrestricted a relay as possible, in my experience, that one really should be rejected. It is the

Some (or most or even all) of the Leaseweb nodes didn't forward port 25. So, alltough you advice is a good one, it's not applicable to some (or most or even all) of the nodes that are discussed in this thread.

I'd be curious to know what this checker says about the IP address that ultimately got this ISPs attention: http://mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx I run 2 fast exits with only ports 25 and 465 rejected. I find that the IPs are in some expected lists that target Tor, plus barracuda and spamhaus-zen. But not a gigantic pile of RBLs like was being described. No sorbs, no spamcop, no uceprotect. Nothing like a real spamming box. Doing nothing on email ports but still ending up on a meaningful number of RBLs doesn't sound right. Maybe all it took to piss the ISP off was for one of them to do it.