F. Fox([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 06:27:08PM -0700:
> Bill Weiss wrote:
> (snip)
> > My Tor node runs a medium-load mail server as well, and I've never been
> > blacklisted for spam stuff [1]. That seems like a decent indication of it
> > not causing problems given how rabid the anti-
As someone involved heavily in IRC and the running of several IRC networks,
I think the primary reason most networks use random blacklists for tor
(there are several, some better than others in terms of operating properly)
is the unusual format of the official dnsel (
https://www.torproject.org/tor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Bill Weiss wrote:
(snip)
> My Tor node runs a medium-load mail server as well, and I've never been
> blacklisted for spam stuff [1]. That seems like a decent indication of it
> not causing problems given how rabid the anti-spam people can get.
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 04:14:17PM -0400:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 08:25:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 1.5K bytes
> in 37 lines about:
> : -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> : Supposedly, one of the exit node operators is going to try opening
> : 465/587
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 08:25:20AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 1.5K bytes in
37 lines about:
: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
: Supposedly, one of the exit node operators is going to try opening
: 465/587 where he hasn't done so before.
I've done it. So far, no complaints.
--
Andrew
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roger Dingledine wrote:
I know this has been discussed before, but I thought I'd bring it up
again. The following rules are in the default exit policy and I can't
see any reason why they would be:
reject *:465
reject *:58
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Supposedly, one of the exit node operators is going to try opening
465/587 where he hasn't done so before.
I'm all for opening 465/587 by default, but I also understand the
concern of exit operators that there may be a significant number of
(perhaps
Roger Dingledine([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:36:47AM -0400:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 04:32:29PM +0100, Dawney Smith wrote:
> > Dawney Smith wrote:
> >
> > >> I know this has been discussed before, but I thought I'd bring it up
> > >> again. The following rules are in the default ex
Scríobh John Brooks:
But it is worth noting that ISPs often are very unfriendly to spam. I've
received several abuse notifications from my dedi's ISP due to tor exit
traffic, all of it because of outgoing spam using insecure webmail
services (where my node's IP shows up in the headers as origin
But it is worth noting that ISPs often are very unfriendly to spam. I've
received several abuse notifications from my dedi's ISP due to tor exit
traffic, all of it because of outgoing spam using insecure webmail services
(where my node's IP shows up in the headers as originating IP). I imagine
they
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 04:32:29PM +0100, Dawney Smith wrote:
> Dawney Smith wrote:
>
> >> I know this has been discussed before, but I thought I'd bring it up
> >> again. The following rules are in the default exit policy and I can't
> >> see any reason why they would be:
> >>
> >> reject *:465
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
