[tor-relays] GoodBadISPs revamp?
thomaswhite at riseup.net
Mon Oct 13 01:56:14 UTC 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I feel we might get marginally better responses if there was an
official @torproject.org mail sending the message as it'll carry more
authority in the eyes of the ISP that what is being said is true.
There have been cases that I've been made aware of where the host
support team says ill-informed statements like Tor enables spammers,
that Tor will get them on the spamhaus BL for the whole range, Tor
nodes get raided weekly etc. Now I am not probably the best person to
have them talking to regarding that last point, but the others are
pretty refutable and I am sure I could convince my current ISP's
(where I host my mammoth cluster) to verify when I say Spamhaus has
never BL'd any of my exits and that spam mail hasn't been a problem.
Getting the EFF on board would help to get individuals motivated but I
am not sure how much companies would become involved without some kind
of incentive to do so.
To branch from an idea myself and Virgil discussed in Paris, some form
of rating or star system for hosts? ISP's love to brag about their
ratings with independent authorities, for which I'd class the EFF and
Tor Project as both independent tech-orientated groups. Perhaps some
kind of rating system for hosts would bring them to consider policies?
For example, ratings of 0-5 are given based on categories such as
allow tor nodes, allows exits, accepts bitcoin, abuse complaints
policies (subjective and a bit ambiguous I understand - detail later)
among other possible factors (suggestions?).
On 13/10/2014 02:25, jason at icetor.is wrote:
> Perhaps instead of enumerating ISP's one by one the best way to
> figure this out could be to partner with someone like the EFF. When
> the EFF had the Tor Relay challenge it seemed very successful,
> perhaps there could be a "Tor ISP Exit challenge" where the goal is
> to get as many independant ISP organizations to commit to running 1
> High speed Exit for 6-12 months ? Obviously much harder to
> co-ordinate but might be the best way to convince many ISP's all at
> once that running an exit is a feasible option for their customers
> (plus good press). -Jason
> On 10/13/2014 01:20 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 02:09:50AM +0100, Thomas White wrote:
>>> Anyone with access to create a new page on the list and we can
>>> add subsections to a new page containing the dated responses
>>> from each company on their policy towards Tor hosting. On
>>> 13/10/2014 01:56, subkeys at riseup.net wrote:
>>>> should the community start a revamp project (or start a whole
>>>> new list)? i'd be willing to donate my time to help get this
>>>> started if need be.
>> Sounds great, please do!
>> Also, while we're on the topic of good interactions with ISPs,
>> let me reiterate something I said back in November:
>> """ I worry about the "slash and burn agriculture" approach to
>> running Tor relays, where you set up an exit relay, and if
>> anybody gets angry you move on to another ISP. That approach is
>> really appealing since it's simple, but it assumes the Internet
>> is infinite. If in fact we're destroying land without regard to
>> sustainability, and we run out of land...
>> Today's interactions with ISPs influence Tor's future viability.
>> _______________________________________________ tor-relays
>> mailing list tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
> _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing
> list tor-relays at lists.torproject.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the tor-relays