Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:56 PM, grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Instead, I think that nodes which exit _only_ to the unencrypted > version of a service (e.g. 80 but not 443) should be excluded from > operating as exits entirely (except as enclaves). In this way these > nodes would be force to "pay their way". We can't stop them from > sniffing, but at least we can make them carry traffic they can't sniff > as part of the cost of doing their evil business. They could do things > like severely throttle encrypted traffic, but that is activity that > testing could detect. >
Where I can read what it means "a bad exit"? Earlier I thought that it is and exit which works wrong in something. And I thought that them excludes from routing. But I pereodically can see that my client establish connections through bad exits. Have I to need do something from preventing it for protection of my anonimity? *********************************************************************** To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org with unsubscribe or-talk in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/