[tor-relays] BitTorrent complaint

theo at caber.nl theo at caber.nl
Thu Apr 11 10:15:00 UTC 2013


Moritz Bartl schreef op 2013-04-11 09:48:
> On 10.04.2013 23:42, theo at caber.nl wrote:
>> It sounds very handy to use the Reduced Exit Policy. But if we _all_ 
>> do
>> that there will be too little exits for users who want to connect to
>> 'strainge' ports. That way they get less anonyimity because they 
>> can't
>> choose from hundreds of exits.
>> In general it is best practice to block/reduce as little traffic as
>> possible. Than we can guarantee enough diversity for everyone, even
>> those people using exotic applications/protocols.
> 
> I totally agree. That's why our relays allow every port except 25. 
> But,
> in the event that DMCA complaints scare away the ISP (or the exit
> operator), they should go for the reduced exit policy (and look for a
> better ISP), instead of randomly dropping packets or otherwise 
> filtering
> traffic, which is just mean (and probably illegal).

Ok. I can also agree with that it is unwanted to drop 'random' 
packages.
But if it is sufficient to stop the Bittorrent complaints I myself 
would
prefer that above setting the Reduced Exit Policy.

I am not an expert on the legal part of the packet dropping - I don't
think you can get any RL trouble by it. But it is true that if we block
certain sites/IP-addresses we don't have an excuse anymore why we
did/will not do the same for some other 'unwanted' sites.

If we want to avoid the packet-dropping problem: We could also reject
the IP-addresses of those sites with torrc. What is your opinion about
that Moritz? And, would it ok for the authorities and users with little
bandwith if I reject ~100 ip-adresses? (Not that I am going to)


More information about the tor-relays mailing list