[tor-relays] Irony and inconsistency

[Fabiano London]

Please! I am not participate in this forum anymore! Any e mail that coming after this will be reported to Uk intelligence police (M15) 
Be aware pls with all posts or e mails here !
Have a nice weekend to all  

> On 12 Jan 2014, at 20:51, I <beatthebastards at inbox.com> wrote:
> 
> It is Crissic I was referring to.
> I've been caught by several similarly.
> But I can say that a couple have quietly let it go on after I put some argument taken from Jacob, Roger, and others of the real legal status of nodes and Tor's real value.  Some say Tor's good but the business rejects it from its model.
> 
> If we all keep stating the facts each time individually we must build the collective impression that people using their own money for privacy and against tyranny (Ayatollah/NSA same same) are reliable and a not real problem and to be accomodated.
> 
> CPU use level is the one I can't control.  That may effect the other slices of server but getting them on Tor's side might bring some tolerance.  I asked them to limit the resources to my VPS which gained some ground and an offer of further help.
> 
> Note the second anecdote wherein the VPS business went to the trouble of downloading and installing Tor when I couldn't.
> 
> I feel Tor is getting to a critical mass not to far away.  Angela Merkel might be looking at using it.
> 
> Robert
> 
> Same thing here.
> I had a server from day one with them and was told "Sorry you've been with us from the start.
> But after careful consideration, Crissic Solutions LLC has decided to ban the usage of TOR on the Crissic network."
> 
> 
> One about three relays paid for a year in advance.
> 
> “Something Solutions LLC has decided to ban the usage of TOR.“ despite “We DO Allow Tor Relays"  being in their current AUP.
> [snip]
> 
> I see no need to be so solicitous of the vendor's reputation.  It is Crissic Solutions ( http://crissic.net/ ) that has changed its policy.
> 
> When I asked the reason for the policy change I was told "Few different reasons, primarily network related."  My take is that they didn't like their users actually using all the bandwidth that they paid for.
> _______________________________________________
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20140118/f4f78f2a/attachment.html>