[tor-relays] the intention of emails aiming to contact operators with no contactInfo

[Tyler Durden]

It would have helped if you contacted us again a week later when you didn't get a response from us because your mail has clearly not reached us and was lost (no trace of it in the logfiles) instead of directly going to the bad-relays list. That's simply putting us in a bad light for a problem that has been mostly mitigated some time ago without your notice. 

P.s: the stats were never 100% accurate because we thought about this from the beginning and had cronjobs artificially creating non Tor related traffic.

Am 11. Februar 2019 22:09:00 MEZ schrieb nusenu <nusenu-lists at riseup.net>:
>It is not directly the topic of this thread but
>I'd like to give you some more context with regards to the "MyFamily" 
>emails to clarify their intention.
>
>To understand the motivation behind these emails we have to look
>at how the "bad-relays" process used to look in cases with no available
>contactInfo
>before I started sending these emails to tor-relays (short version):
>
>1) someone reports some relay(s)
>2) if directory authorities (or their proxies) agree to reject/badexit
>the relay(s), 
>no information is send to the operator since no contact information is
>available and the operator
>has no chance to solve the issue before actions are taken
>3) directory authorities apply the config change
>
>in my opinion it were nice if there were at least an _attempt_ to
>reach out to the operator even with no contactInfo present before even
>considering any actions to give the operator the chance to solve things
>right away. 
>This is where this list (tor-relays@) came in,
>it was used as an option of last resort (to attempt) to contact the
>operator 
>since it is basically the canonical place to reach operators
>(and yes I agree that my wording in the last such email wasn't great
>which tells you my motivation to send them was decreasing).
>
>As I understand some feel harassed by these emails, 
>this was not my intention, sorry about that.
>So the old procedure (no emails to this list) will be restored.
>
>
>With regards to why virii might be mad at me, 
>that is probably related to a recent email of mine (see below).
>I can understand such an email will not be appreciated
>but the goal was to trigger a change to reduce the risk at hand.
>And in the end it has been solved promptly and the tor network
>is a tiny bit safer for its users -  that is the overall goal here.
>Thanks for solving it.
>
>
>
>
>
>-------- Forwarded Message --------
>Subject: enn.lu publishes detailed relay traffic stats
>Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2019 22:37:00 +0000
>From: nusenu 
>To: bad-relays <bad-relays at lists.torproject.org>
>CC: info at enn.lu
>
>6 months ago I asked enn.lu to take care of 
>their public relay stats, I didn't hear from them since
>so I propose to reject one of their relays
>to rise awareness and hope they will take mitigating
>actions.
>
>
>https://stats.enn.lu/
>
>http://185.100.87.206/vnstat.xml
>http://185.100.87.207/vnstat.xml
>http://85.248.227.165/vnstat.xml
>http://85.248.227.164/vnstat.xml
>http://85.248.227.163/vnstat.xml
>
>
>-------- Forwarded Message --------
>Subject: please avoid publishing granular relay statistics
>Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 20:42:00 +0000
>From: nusenu
>To: info at enn.lu
>
>Hi,
>
>you are publishing hour-level traffic statistics about your relays and
>bridges 
>at https://stats.enn.lu/
>
>to quote teor and the relay guide:
>
>> If you want to publish traffic statistics, you should aggregate all
>your relays' 
>> traffic over at least a week, then round that to the nearest 10 TiB
>(terabytes).
>
>thanks,
>nusenu
>
>https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/TorRelayGuide#SystemHealthMonitoring

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20190211/e9625127/attachment.html>