Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

Aplin, Justin M jmaplin at
Mon Jan 31 11:22:49 UTC 2011

On 1/31/2011 6:05 AM, morphium wrote:
> 2011/1/31 Mike Perry<mikeperry at>:
>> So when I said in my earlier post that we don't need exit capacity
>> that bad, I meant it. Thanks, but no thanks. You are contributing
>> negative productivity, and none of the non-bitorrenting exits really
>> will notice your absence in terms of load. Please direct yourself
>> towards the nearest forbidden lake.
> So, to summarize that, you are saying to every operator that is not
> your opinion: We (as the Tor project) don't need you.
> Thats... pretty arrogant.

I'm not sure how that's arrogant at all. These nodes aren't 
exit-flagged, have suspicious (though maybe not damning) "exit" 
policies, and have no or fake contact information. They're either 
malicious or horribly configured, and in either case there's no way to 
get in touch with the operators. Strong odds are they're doing the 
network (and its goals) more harm than good, so they're removed from it 
(note that there was no IP ban, so the operators are free to return to 
the network if they so choose). Honestly, it seems to me that this is 
the Tor Project equivalent of a slap on the wrist; a much stronger, more 
irrational decision could certainly have been elicited.

I'm operating under the assumption that we run our nodes to further the 
goals of the Tor Project and help the community. I'm not sure why 
removing exits with idiotic or malicious configurations (until the 
operator either fixes them or explains themselves) is a bad thing.

~Justin Aplin

To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo at with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body.

More information about the tor-talk mailing list