List search?
Hello, I would first first like to search my problem in a list archive for reducing list volume. Is there any? regards Kai-Uwe
Re: List search?
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Kai-Uwe Behrmannk...@gmx.de wrote: Hello, Hi, I would first first like to search my problem in a list archive for reducing list volume. Is there any? You can find the archive for or-talk on http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ -- Runa Sandvik
Re: List search?
Am 10.08.09, 15:14 +0200 schrieb Runa Sandvik: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Kai-Uwe Behrmannk...@gmx.de wrote: Hello, Hi, I would first first like to search my problem in a list archive for reducing list volume. Is there any? You can find the archive for or-talk on http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/ A search form is not provided there. To search so many folders by hand - huh. Sorry, for saying not clearly, that I meant a automated search. Anyway thanks, Kai-Uwe
Re: List search?
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Kai-Uwe Behrmannk...@gmx.de wrote: A search form is not provided there. To search so many folders by hand - huh. Sorry, for saying not clearly, that I meant a automated search. You could use google and, for example, search for notices.log site:http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/;. -- Runa Sandvik
Re: List search?
Am 10.08.09, 15:58 +0200 schrieb Runa Sandvik: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Kai-Uwe Behrmannk...@gmx.de wrote: A search form is not provided there. To search so many folders by hand - huh. Sorry, for saying not clearly, that I meant a automated search. You could use google and, for example, search for notices.log site:http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/;. Oh, that seems to work good. Thanks. Kai-Uwe
Re: List search?
On Monday 10 August 2009 15:17:13 Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote: Hello, I would first first like to search my problem in a list archive for reducing list volume. Is there any? regards Kai-Uwe You can try http://marc.info/?l=tor-talkr=1w=2 Regards, Erwin Lam -- Erwin Lam (erwin...@dds.nl)
Re: Libevent errors with running Tor on a virtual server
Am Sat, 8 Aug 2009 18:35:31 -0700 schrieb coderman coder...@gmail.com: well, you don't need to mention Tor specifically. any network intensive application may need more than 1024 descriptors. Hi, they denied my request with the imo nonsense answer that they couldn't do individual changes to the vserver-settings.. What now? As said my node has traffic around 2000-2500 KBs and 200-400 GB each day. Shall I better close it ? greetings signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Tor in a Ubuntu VM (German)
For those who speak German. I think thats a nice solution! http://wiki.ubuntuusers.de/VM_basierende_Anonymisierung? regards, Michael
Tor and system time
Hi, I am sorry to disturb you with some newbie questions. - How do I deal with system time when I use Tor? Is it the best way to let the system synchronise with a time server? - When I connect to an hidden service, how many hops are used from my system to the hidden service? Is it just my system - middle node of someone - hidden service ? Thanx Michael
Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
I'm not spitting nails now, so I guess I've calmed down enough to post this message. Friday, while waiting for Comcast to get its act together to deal with registration problems involving the replacement cablemodem they brought here (still not resolved), I received the monthly call from their insecurity division, claiming that my computer was infected with malicious software. Yeah, right. I informed the person that their monthly harassment calls about something they obviously knew nothing about were not appreciated. To date, they have never provided so much as an IP address or a port number that supposedly had been attacked in any way from my system. The person then claimed that my system had been connecting to botnets, but was unable or unwilling to support that claim with any evidence and unable or unwilling to provide even a port number via which the alleged connections had been made. (All of the port numbers allowed in my exit policy are reserved port numbers by IANA or are tor-related ports or are other special purpose ports limited to particular IP addresses, so they are all legitimate.) That leaves only DoS attacks, and it is difficult for me to imagine conducting any effective DoS attacks via tor because of slowness of doing anything over tor. I repeatedly offered to close any exit ports that had been affected, but that they would have to tell me which ones those were. The person refused. I was also told that IP addresses of the supposedly attacked systems or of the supposedly contacted botnets could not be provided to me either. (It was not clear whether the alleged complaints came from the alleged botnet operator(s) or from the supposed targets of the alleged botnets, but it struck me as bizarre that a botnet operator would file a complaint with an ISP alleging interference with the botnet. I'm quite suspicious that Comcast has made the whole thing up out of thin air.) Next, the conversation took a turn in a different direction. I was told that port 443 (my relay's DirPort) was open facing the Internet, i.e., that a program was actually listening on that port via the interface that connects to the cablemodem. I was told that having *any* ports open facing the Internet was a violation of Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for residential accounts. During this part of the conversation I told the person to look at www.torproject.org. This turned out to be a mistake, probably because the web pages there have never been updated to replace the client- server terminology with router terminology, so the person was immediately convinced that I was running a server, which the person claimed was a violation of the AUP. This means, of course, that one cannot even run sshd on one's system to allow secure logins from other locations to one's own computer. I was told that I would need to upgrade to a Comcast business-class account if I were going to run a server, by which they meant having any program(s) listening on ports accessable from the Internet. Please note that Comcast is now running port scanners against their customers' IP addresses to determine whether anything is listening on any ports at those addresses. The person I spoke with did so while talking with me, but had already seen port scan results before calling me. I do not know whether they scan the full range of possible port numbers or only a subset. The person kept mentioning that 443 was open, but never mentioned 995, which was the ORPort and was getting the vast majority of the traffic. The net result of that conversation was that I had the choice of shutting down my relay, MYCROFTsOtherChild, or having my account terminated for a minimum of 12 months. I chose the former, at least while I investigate other options, of which there are only two or three at my location. A minimal Comcast business account will cost $60/mo. and require either a 12-month contract with an installation fee of over $200 or a 24-month contract with no installation fee. However, the Comcast business service does not *yet* have a monthly cap, whereas I've had to throttle my relay quite severely the past several months due to Comcast's bait-and-switch of last year when the service sold as being unlimited suddenly got a 250 GB/mo. cap imposed last October. (Currently, I pay $40/mo. + $3/mo. for cablemodem rental and have no contract.) Verizon residential service is only available at my location if I also buy their telephone service, the combination of which would cost ~$80/mo. and also require a 12-month contract. I have yet to get the details on Verizon business-class service, but it seems unlikely to be any cheaper. Verizon's residential service does not currently have a cap, but I don't know whether they prohibit listening on ports accessable from the Internet. I exist on a shoestring, and even an increase of $17/mo. will come out of my food intake each month, which already averages about 1.5 meals/day. If I can
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 13:39 -0500, Scott Bennett wrote: Verizon residential service is only available at my location if I also buy their telephone service, the combination of which would cost ~ $80/mo. and also require a 12-month contract. I have yet to get the details on Verizon business-class service, but it seems unlikely to be any cheaper. Verizon's residential service does not currently have a cap, but I don't know whether they prohibit listening on ports accessable from the Internet. I believe they do, under the same guise of prohibiting servers on consumer-level accounts. I haven't read the AUP, just something I've heard. That being said, I've been running sshd+vpnd+other assorted gunk on my FIOS connection for a while, so I would presume that they don't actively enforce that policy. Are there any non-business ISP's in the US that are positive towards using your connection at all? It seems like everything is capped or AUP'd up the wazoo, to the point where you will *not* get what you paid for. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Tor and system time
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 02:09:04PM -0400, Michael Gomboc wrote: - How do I deal with system time when I use Tor? Is it the best way to let the system synchronise with a time server? Yes. How you do this depends on what platform you're on, but generally your goal is to get an NTP (network time protocol) client going. - When I connect to an hidden service, how many hops are used from my system to the hidden service? Is it just my system - middle node of someone - hidden service ? https://www.torproject.org/hidden-services In general, the complete connection between client and hidden service consists of 6 relays: 3 of them were picked by the client with the third being the rendezvous point and the other 3 were picked by the hidden service. --Roger
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Scott Bennettbenn...@cs.niu.edu wrote: [snip] business-class service, but it seems unlikely to be any cheaper. Verizon's residential service does not currently have a cap, but I don't know whether they prohibit listening on ports accessable from the Internet. VZN's residential AUP prohibits servers along with a number of other offensive prohibitions which they don't currently enforce. (For example, you're prohibited from using your VZN broadband for anything sexually explicit). As I recall the business FiOS AUP had it's own set of ridiculous terms... but it didn't attempt to prohibit you from running servers.
unsubscribe or-talk
Please unsubscribe me. Thanks. -Original Message- From: owner-or-t...@freehaven.net [mailto:owner-or-t...@freehaven.net] On Behalf Of Roger Dingledine Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 9:59 PM To: or-talk@freehaven.net Subject: Re: Tor and system time On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 02:09:04PM -0400, Michael Gomboc wrote: - How do I deal with system time when I use Tor? Is it the best way to let the system synchronise with a time server? Yes. How you do this depends on what platform you're on, but generally your goal is to get an NTP (network time protocol) client going. - When I connect to an hidden service, how many hops are used from my system to the hidden service? Is it just my system - middle node of someone - hidden service ? https://www.torproject.org/hidden-services In general, the complete connection between client and hidden service consists of 6 relays: 3 of them were picked by the client with the third being the rendezvous point and the other 3 were picked by the hidden service. --Roger
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
On Monday 10 August 2009 02:55:13 pm Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Scott Bennettbenn...@cs.niu.edu wrote: [snip] business-class service, but it seems unlikely to be any cheaper. Verizon's residential service does not currently have a cap, but I don't know whether they prohibit listening on ports accessable from the Internet. VZN's residential AUP prohibits servers along with a number of other offensive prohibitions which they don't currently enforce. (For example, you're prohibited from using your VZN broadband for anything sexually explicit). As I recall the business FiOS AUP had it's own set of ridiculous terms... but it didn't attempt to prohibit you from running servers. AUPs are rarely enforced. They are there so they can cut you off if/when someone complains or you do something to annoy them. In any case, I would run my servers regardless of their AUP. NO ONE tells me I cannot run sshd or any other of what I consider personally critical apps. They also don't get to tell me not to run a tor relay. -- “We can have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of great wealth in the hands of the few. We cannot have both.” — Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1916-1939
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
--- On Mon, 8/10/09, Scott Bennett benn...@cs.niu.edu wrote: Next, the conversation took a turn I was told that having *any* ports open facing the Internet was a violation of Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for residential accounts. Seems like another good argument in favor of implementing a mechanism for relays to work behind firewalls, you would not need to have any open ports. This might be another way that they attack bittorent users since to get better bandwidth, they need to open ports. While it does suck, ultimately you can't blame them for this policy (the other BS notwithstanding) since it is in their AUP. There's a reason I don't use such an account despite having to regularly justify the extra monthly expense to my wife when she asks: why can't we use one of those cheap DSL/cable internet services I see advertised everywhere? If they couldn't do this, to stay competitive, they would charge more money for everyone and you would suffer more. Cheap internet access and serving is not some inherent human right, so let's not complain about the price of gas here. ;) (unless it is to propose ways to make tor use less gas...) -Martin
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 12:28 -0700, Martin Fick wrote: If they couldn't do this, to stay competitive, they would charge more money for everyone and you would suffer more. Cheap internet access and serving is not some inherent human right, so let's not complain about the price of gas here. ;) (unless it is to propose ways to make tor use less gas...) -Martin On the contrary, it was my impression that we are here working on, contributing to, and using Tor because we believe that internet access is a human right. This includes end-to-end connectivity. Pricing a real internet connection (what is being referred to as a business account or the like) out of reach of common folk is equivalent to the overt denial of this human right. Am I misinformed here? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[OT] RE:unsubscribe or-talk
You have to email a special address to unsubscribe. It's in the headers. From: caner...@gmail.com To: or-talk@freehaven.net Subject: unsubscribe or-talk Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:02:08 +0300 Please unsubscribe me. Thanks. _ Get free photo software from Windows Live http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
--- On Mon, 8/10/09, Ted Smith ted...@gmail.com wrote: Martin Fick wrote: If they couldn't do this, to stay competitive, they would charge more money for everyone and you would suffer more. Cheap internet access and serving is not some inherent human right, so let's not complain about the price of gas here. ;) (unless it is to propose ways to make tor use less gas...) -Martin On the contrary, it was my impression that we are here working on, contributing to, and using Tor because we believe that internet access is a human right. This includes end-to-end connectivity. Pricing a real internet connection (what is being referred to as a business account or the like) out of reach of common folk is equivalent to the overt denial of this human right. A right is something someone should not be able to prevent you from doing, not something that should be provided to you. I believe that you have the right to be a space tourist if you want to be, but, of course, that does not imply that I believe that you should be able to become a space tourist for $10 (unless someone offers it to you at this price voluntarily). The right to do something and the means to do it are two completely separate issues. Despite that fact that the term is commonly miss-used, if someone has to actively do something to give you something, it can never be properly labeled a right. If you are stranded on an island somewhere alone (by no fault of others), it is illogical to suggest that someone or some organization can violate your rights without interacting with you are your island's environment. If you define something as a right which requires action on someone else's part, it obviously cannot be fulfilled without violating this principal. By violating this principle, a lone human survivor on earth after a holocaust would have his rights violated by the non-existence of others or a government to act. Clearly this is non-sense and illogical. If you think that something is a basic human right, perhaps you should reconsider if it does not play well with this logic. And, yes I do realize that this throws out many of the commonly accepted rights that many people believe should be rights. This simply illustrates many of the common politically illogical (but potentially well meaning) beliefs. You are perhaps correct to assume that some here on this list and some of the developers share the larger desire that you express, but I do not believe that you could make the claim that this is what tor is about or attempting to achieve. If the tor project became so misguided that it attempted to achieve your expressed goal politically, (which is the only logical end point to your belief since you declared it a human-right), I would quickly drop support for it and stop running my relay since this would inevitably mean forcing ISPs to provide people with a service they are unwilling to pay for - theft. But surely, as you do, I hope that people can get cheap internet access, this hardly means it deserves the status of right, or a long pricing discussion here on or-talk. I am not suggesting that the topic is off-limits either, just that is seems inappropriate for long rants here... Of course, I am not related to the project, this is just my opinion. Cheers, and hopefully via technology, cheap anonymous internet to all, :) -Martin
Re: unsubscribe or-talk
As was noted the last ten times (by my count) someone did this, and as you were told when you registered, and as you are told in every email sent by this list, and just like any other mailing list using this software, of which there are a great many, your message says this: Subject: unsubscribe or-talk and a few lines later, X-To-Get-Off-This-List: mail majord...@seul.org, body unsubscribe or-talk Apparently, the illiterate still manage to learn how to subscribe to mailing lists (perhaps their kids show them how?), though to what purpose is anyone's guess. On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Caner Bulutcaner...@gmail.com wrote: Please unsubscribe me. Thanks. -- DCollins/ST47
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
Ted Smith(ted...@gmail.com)@Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 02:52:26PM -0400: On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 13:39 -0500, Scott Bennett wrote: Verizon residential service is only available at my location if I also buy their telephone service, the combination of which would cost ~ $80/mo. and also require a 12-month contract. I have yet to get the details on Verizon business-class service, but it seems unlikely to be any cheaper. Verizon's residential service does not currently have a cap, but I don't know whether they prohibit listening on ports accessable from the Internet. I believe they do, under the same guise of prohibiting servers on consumer-level accounts. I haven't read the AUP, just something I've heard. That being said, I've been running sshd+vpnd+other assorted gunk on my FIOS connection for a while, so I would presume that they don't actively enforce that policy. Are there any non-business ISP's in the US that are positive towards using your connection at all? It seems like everything is capped or AUP'd up the wazoo, to the point where you will *not* get what you paid for. Speakeasy.net is happy to let you use your connection. They're also significantly more expensive than your normal home-use DSL or cable. Worth it? Your call. -- Bill Weiss No tool is inherently good or evil. Okay, except maybe for Frontpage. -- Mike Sphar
Re: unsubscribe or-talk
Dan Collins wrote: As was noted the last ten times (by my count) someone did this, and as you were told when you registered, and as you are told in every email sent by this list, and just like any other mailing list using this software, of which there are a great many, your message says this: Subject: unsubscribe or-talk and a few lines later, X-To-Get-Off-This-List: mail majord...@seul.org, body unsubscribe or-talk Apparently, the illiterate still manage to learn how to subscribe to mailing lists (perhaps their kids show them how?), though to what purpose is anyone's guess. One of the things I love about being an IT Professional is, in general, being really smart. One of the things I hate about being an IT Professional is when the really smart look down their nose at someone who apparently can't do something simple. USENET from 1992 is pretty much finished and I would personally be gratified, not that it matters, if you just explained the proper command to the guy instead of proving to me, and everyone else, that indeed you have mastered Majordomo. I, for one, wasn't impressed. There's probably a good amount of user class subscriptions to this list. Try to remember that those folks actually get attention from women, and have what we, the IT People, only dream of: Lives. Yes, I've had a bad day. But please... be nice. Michael
[OT]RE: unsubscribe or-talk
'It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.' - Anon Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:17:01 -0400 Subject: Re: unsubscribe or-talk From: en.wp.s...@gmail.com To: or-talk@freehaven.net As was noted the last ten times (by my count) someone did this, and as you were told when you registered, and as you are told in every email sent by this list, and just like any other mailing list using this software, of which there are a great many, your message says this: Subject: unsubscribe or-talk and a few lines later, X-To-Get-Off-This-List: mail majord...@seul.org, body unsubscribe or-talk Apparently, the illiterate still manage to learn how to subscribe to mailing lists (perhaps their kids show them how?), though to what purpose is anyone's guess. DCollins/ST47 _ Get free photo software from Windows Live http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
Ted Smith wrote: On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 13:39 -0500, Scott Bennett wrote: Verizon residential service is only available at my location if I also buy their telephone service, the combination of which would cost ~ $80/mo. and also require a 12-month contract. I have yet to get the details on Verizon business-class service, but it seems unlikely to be any cheaper. Verizon's residential service does not currently have a cap, but I don't know whether they prohibit listening on ports accessable from the Internet. I believe they do, under the same guise of prohibiting servers on consumer-level accounts. I haven't read the AUP, just something I've heard. That being said, I've been running sshd+vpnd+other assorted gunk on my FIOS connection for a while, so I would presume that they don't actively enforce that policy. Are there any non-business ISP's in the US that are positive towards using your connection at all? It seems like everything is capped or AUP'd up the wazoo, to the point where you will *not* get what you paid for. I've run various servers for years on my Cablevision/Optimum account without any problems or complaints whatsoever. They do block ports 25 and 80 on the basic account level, however the next level eliminates that and you get 30Mbps down and 5Mbps up with it.
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
In the US, RoadRunner and WOW are $50 for about 5+ megs down and maybe half a meg up. Lots of people I know run all sorts of 'servers', on their lines. Yes, these ISP's forbid 'servers' and 'proxies', etc in their AUP's. Though no one I know has ever been hit with the stick. They're all minimally running ssh, smtps, https, dns. Some are running the standard strong stuff: freenet, i2p, tor, gnunet. Some use bittorrent. A bunch download from rapidshare, etc. They've had no issues. If your ISP takes a liking to your line via their ticketing system and you can't shake them through education or feint... it's time to cancel and for your 'new flatmate' to sign up for the next line/ISP. Wash, rinse and repeat in loop. Business class is about pricing, SLA's, resell, contracts and associated legalities and marketing. Not data transfer. Residential end users, even without servers, use way more traffic than business end users connected to the same fiber/coax/copper plant.
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 13:22 -0700, Martin Fick wrote: A right is something someone should not be able to prevent you from doing, not something that should be provided to you. I believe that you have the right to be a space tourist if you want to be, but, of course, that does not imply that I believe that you should be able to become a space tourist for $10 (unless someone offers it to you at this price voluntarily). The right to do something and the means to do it are two completely separate issues. We aren't talking about the net a source of amusement. It is an essential means for news, information, communication and political speech. Consider what some people use Tor for. As it is, access in the US is controlled by a few powerful telecoms, and if one of them arbitrarily decides to preclude Tor or other anonymity programs, it will have wide effects. I would not use Comcast, wouldn't trust them given their history (e.g., BitTorrent). They're under-handed, lying and basically corrupt. To the OP, consider changing services. Jon
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
--- On Mon, 8/10/09, Martin Fick mogul...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Mon, 8/10/09, Scott Bennett benn...@cs.niu.edu wrote: Next, the conversation took a turn I was told that having *any* ports open facing the Internet was a violation of Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for residential accounts. Seems like another good argument in favor of implementing a mechanism for relays to work behind firewalls, you would not need to have any open ports. ... so let's not complain about the price of gas here. ;) (unless it is to propose ways to make tor use less gas...) Which give me another idea. What if directory servers were used to publish a secret port knocking handshake for relays? This would allow relays to go unnoticed on port scans. Obviously this would not be a technique to hide tor relays, but only to hide open ports from ISPs. As long as they do not specifically target tor relay operators, this might be effective? -Martin
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 13:22 -0700, Martin Fick wrote: A right is something someone should not be able to prevent you from doing, not something that should be provided to you. I believe that you have the right to be a space tourist if you want to be, but, of course, that does not imply that I believe that you should be able to become a space tourist for $10 (unless someone offers it to you at this price voluntarily). The right to do something and the means to do it are two completely separate issues. ... By this logic, a person living in a city has no right to food, and a person living in the country has no right to shelter. Both of these are more specific forms of the human right to life, much like the right to internet access is a more specific form of the human right to information and community. Your post-apocalyptic survivor would still enjoy this right, since the full extent of human information and community is their mind. If you think that something is a basic human right, perhaps you should reconsider if it does not play well with this logic. And, yes I do realize that this throws out many of the commonly accepted rights that many people believe should be rights. Are you asserting that your logic is more sound than that of the many people you speak of, including ethicists, political scientists, etc.? That seems like a dangerous proposition to make. This is already basically off topic; if you want to continue this, consider doing it off-list. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Libevent errors with running Tor on a virtual server
On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:47 PM, D-503 wrote: Am Sat, 8 Aug 2009 18:35:31 -0700 schrieb coderman coder...@gmail.com: well, you don't need to mention Tor specifically. any network intensive application may need more than 1024 descriptors. Hi, they denied my request with the imo nonsense answer that they couldn't do individual changes to the vserver-settings.. What now? As said my node has traffic around 2000-2500 KBs and 200-400 GB each day. Shall I better close it ? greetings Find another hosting company.
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 01:39:44PM -0500, Scott Bennett wrote: [...] to the cablemodem. I was told that having *any* ports open facing the Internet was a violation of Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for residential accounts. [...] This would be crippling if true - residential VOIP and instant messaging requires open ports and does so be default. Luckily the person was incorrect. There are only two relevant lines in their AUP at http://www.comcast.net/terms/use/ Under Technical Restrictions it says you must not blockquote * use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network (“Premises LAN”), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, e-mail, Web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers; * use or run programs from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises LAN, except for personal and non-commercial residential use; /blockquote As you can see proxies are specifically named; say bye to your Tor relay under Comcast residential contract. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:09:23 -0400 Praedor Atrebates prae...@yahoo.com wrote: On Monday 10 August 2009 02:55:13 pm Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Scott Bennettbenn...@cs.niu.edu wrote: [snip] business-class service, but it seems unlikely to be any cheaper. Verizon's residential service does not currently have a cap, but I don= 't know whether they prohibit listening on ports accessable from the Internet. VZN's residential AUP prohibits servers along with a number of other offensive prohibitions which they don't currently enforce. (For example, you're prohibited from using your VZN broadband for anything sexually explicit). As I recall the business FiOS AUP had it's own set of ridiculous terms... but it didn't attempt to prohibit you from running servers. AUPs are rarely enforced. They are there so they can cut you off if/when=20 someone complains or you do something to annoy them. In any case, I would run my servers regardless of their AUP. NO ONE tells = me=20 I cannot run sshd or any other of what I consider personally critical apps.= =20 They also don't get to tell me not to run a tor relay. That is a good attitude to take when you run a tor relay in a vicinity where there is an adequate number of competing ISPs with diverse policies, so that if one gives you trouble, you can quickly jump to another. But I'm afraid that where I live it will just get you disconnected from the Internet. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army. * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
As you can see proxies are specifically named; say bye to your Tor relay under Comcast residential contract. I would say it is still possible to run it, but at low speed ... you know, fly below the radar. -- _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) - against HTML email X vCards / \
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:33:10 -0400 Ted Smith ted...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 12:28 -0700, Martin Fick wrote: If they couldn't do this, to stay competitive, they=20 would charge more money for everyone and you would=20 suffer more. Cheap internet access and serving is=20 not some inherent human right, so let's not complain=20 about the price of gas here. ;) (unless it is to=20 propose ways to make tor use less gas...) =20 -Martin On the contrary, it was my impression that we are here working on, contributing to, and using Tor because we believe that internet access is a human right. This includes end-to-end connectivity. Pricing a real internet connection (what is being referred to as a business account or the like) out of reach of common folk is equivalent to the overt denial of this human right. Am I misinformed here? I believe you are. Martin is correct in that the surest way to kill freedom on the Internet is to apply socialist economics to it. It is probably also the best way to ensure governmental abuses of users of the Internet (see, for example, communist China or Cuba and, in the most extreme, North Korea, where the Internet doesn't really exist, for all practical purposes). What Martin misunderstood is what I object to, which is fraudulent or otherwise deceptive marketing practices, as exemplified by Comcast. Time-Warner may also soon join Comcast in this regard, if it hasn't already. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army. * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 23:55 -0500, Scott Bennett wrote: On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:33:10 -0400 Ted Smith ted...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 12:28 -0700, Martin Fick wrote: If they couldn't do this, to stay competitive, they=20 would charge more money for everyone and you would=20 suffer more. Cheap internet access and serving is=20 not some inherent human right, so let's not complain=20 about the price of gas here. ;) (unless it is to=20 propose ways to make tor use less gas...) =20 -Martin On the contrary, it was my impression that we are here working on, contributing to, and using Tor because we believe that internet access is a human right. This includes end-to-end connectivity. Pricing a real internet connection (what is being referred to as a business account or the like) out of reach of common folk is equivalent to the overt denial of this human right. Am I misinformed here? I believe you are. Martin is correct in that the surest way to kill freedom on the Internet is to apply socialist economics to it. It is probably also the best way to ensure governmental abuses of users of the Internet (see, for example, communist China or Cuba and, in the most extreme, North Korea, where the Internet doesn't really exist, for all practical purposes). You're conveniently ignoring countries like Sweden, Iceland, Estonia, where socialist Internet policies have resulted in some of the best environments of digital freedom. In fact, your list appears only to contain countries that were oppressive and authoritarian *before* the Internet appeared, and is mostly composed of states which have attempted to limit Internet access to as few people as possible, if anyone. How do they exemplify countries with universal access to the Internet? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: unsubscribe or-talk
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:42:56 -0400 Michael Cozzi co...@cozziconsulting.com wrote: Dan Collins wrote: As was noted the last ten times (by my count) someone did this, and as you were told when you registered, and as you are told in every email sent by this list, and just like any other mailing list using this software, of which there are a great many, your message says this: Subject: unsubscribe or-talk and a few lines later, X-To-Get-Off-This-List: mail majord...@seul.org, body unsubscribe or-talk Apparently, the illiterate still manage to learn how to subscribe to mailing lists (perhaps their kids show them how?), though to what purpose is anyone's guess. One of the things I love about being an IT Professional is, in general, being really smart. One of the things I hate about being an IT Professional is when the really smart look down their nose at someone who apparently can't do something simple. USENET from 1992 is pretty much finished and I would personally be gratified, not that it matters, if you just explained the proper command to the guy instead of proving to me, and everyone else, that indeed you have mastered Majordomo. I, for one, wasn't impressed. There's probably a good amount of user class subscriptions to this list. Try to remember that those folks actually get attention from women, and have what we, the IT People, only dream of: Lives. Yes, I've had a bad day. But please... be nice. Actually, most/all of what he posted was a quotation without citation of me from several weeks ago, IIRC, when yes, I had had a bad day. However, it doesn't matter whether a person is familiar with majordomo, listserv, or other mailing list software. What matters is whether they can read and bother to do so. FWIW, I responded privately to the OP in the current case, quoting and undercareting the header in question and asking him to unsubscribe himself. He then wrote back, asking me how to do it! So I wrote once again, stating that I couldn't believe it, this time placing a large, vertical arrow below the undercareting and pointing upward toward it. That time he finally got it. Sigh. If you can think of any excuse for that, I'd love to read it. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army. * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
Jon, Martin, et al.: please stop double-posting. There is only one or-talk mailing list, even though it has two addresses. On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:04:05 + Jon Cosby j...@jcosby.com wrote: On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 13:22 -0700, Martin Fick wrote: A right is something someone should not be able to prevent you from doing, not something that should be provided to you. I believe that you have the right to be a space tourist if you want to be, but, of course, that does not imply that I believe that you should be able to become a space tourist for $10 (unless someone offers it to you at this price voluntarily). The right to do something and the means to do it are two completely separate issues. We aren't talking about the net a source of amusement. It is an essential means for news, information, communication and political speech. Consider what some people use Tor for. As it is, access in the US is controlled by a few powerful telecoms, and if one of them arbitrarily decides to preclude Tor or other anonymity programs, it will have wide effects. I would not use Comcast, wouldn't trust them given their history (e.g., BitTorrent). They're under-handed, lying and basically corrupt. To the OP, consider changing services. Thanks. I would indeed like to switch to Verizon, which gets good reviews around here for its Internet services. The hangups for me are the money involved and the fixed-term contracts. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army. * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:48:10 -0400 Ted Smith ted...@gmail.com wrote: To: or-talk@freehaven.net Cc: or-t...@seul.org Ted, please stop doing that. Only one copy of each message need be posted to the list. On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 13:22 -0700, Martin Fick wrote: A right is something someone should not be able to=20 prevent you from doing, not something that should be=20 provided to you. I believe that you have the right=20 to be a space tourist if you want to be, but, of course, that does not imply that I believe that you=20 should be able to become a space tourist for $10=20 (unless someone offers it to you at this price=20 voluntarily). The right to do something and the=20 means to do it are two completely separate issues. ... By this logic, a person living in a city has no right to food, and a person living in the country has no right to shelter. Both of these are more specific forms of the human right to life, much like the right to internet access is a more specific form of the human right to information and community. Your post-apocalyptic survivor would still enjoy this right, since the full extent of human information and community is their mind. If you think that something is a basic human right, perhaps you should reconsider if it does not play well with this logic. And, yes I do realize that this throws out many of the=20 commonly accepted rights that many people believe should be rights.=20 Are you asserting that your logic is more sound than that of the many people you speak of, including ethicists, political scientists, etc.? That seems like a dangerous proposition to make.=20 This is already basically off topic; if you want to continue this, consider doing it off-list. Time for you to do some research off the list. Start by looking up the definitions of the terms positive rights and negative rights. They are not interchangeable. You will see that the former is actually a misnomer referring to a power, not a right, of someone to violate the latter of someone else. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army. * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **
Re: Comcast throws down gauntlet to residential accounts
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:54:22 +0300 Robas, Teodor teodor.ro...@gmail.com wrote: As you can see proxies are specifically named; say bye to your Tor relay under Comcast residential contract. I would say it is still possible to run it, but at low speed ... you know, fly below the radar. How would slower speeds avoid Comcast's port scans? Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ** * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * ** * A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army. * *-- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **
