>> Is there any justification for a low-bandwidth Tor node?
Other than the diversity of having more nodes around...
seems from discussions here that slower nodes see less
users. Which means they're not as likely to be blocked
by content providers for user misbehavior. This can be
valuable for the
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 03:05:32PM +0100, Andrew Beveridge wrote:
> > - What do you currently pay for hosting/bandwidth, and how much bandwidth
> > do you get for that?
>
> This is a complicated question, because I run a single Tor exit in a VPS on
> my company dedicated server. I run a local comp
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 05:49:34AM -0400, Motoko Kusanagi wrote:
> I am very interested in running 100 Mbit (maybe even more) exit nodes at
> 100$/month, however, a question immediately comes to mind:
> When we say "100Mbit exit node", do we imply "really unmetered" traffic at
> 100 Mbit, or do w
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:34:14PM +0100, mick wrote:
> > We've lined up our first funder (BBG, aka http://www.voanews.com/),
> > and they're excited to have us start as soon as we can. They want to
> > sponsor 125+ fast exits.
>
> Forgive me, but what do they want in return? ("He who pays the
> p
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:01:13PM -0400, Steve Snyder wrote:
> >At the same time, much of our performance improvement comes from better
> >load balancing -- that is, concentrating traffic on the relays that can
> >handle it better. The result though is a direct tradeoff with relay
> >diversity: on
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:32:30PM +0200, Julian Wissmann wrote:
> we've got an offer for 10GBit
>unmetered@750?, which is kind of sweet spot performance/buck wise and I
>guess, that it could handle 8-12 Tor nodes performance wise to satisfy
>the pipe. It would be a large number of high performance
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:21:01AM +0100, mick wrote:
> Question for tor developers. How hard would it be to change the logic
> (and syntax) of exit policy in tor to allow domain based formulations
> like:
>
> reject *.gmail.com
> reject *aol.com
Very hard.
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/t
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:31:42PM +, delber wrote:
> What we have found though, is that several smaller (not-for-profits or
> coops) ISPs would be happy to help the Tor network, provided there is a
> clear legal boundary. Something that our not-for-profit would create.
> The downside is that t
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Sam Whited wrote:
> Perhaps only registered companies should be sponsored ??? as much as I
> hate to limit the scope of the project, I think this (might) prevent
> abuse to a certain extent. Individuals who wanted to run an exit relay
> of their own could s
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:50:20PM -0700, Mike Perry wrote:
> > > > Hey all,
> > > > Have you contemplated sending this over to the hackerspaces list?
> > >
> > > There exists THE list for hackerspaces? Well hot damn. Are these them:
> > > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/
> > >
> > I
2012/7/31 grarpamp :
>> I've thought about constructing iptables rules to limit the number of
>> SYN packets for the same host per second or such
>
> Multiple flows to the same host don't really bother routers of any class.
> Old routers choke when looking up many hosts in the routing table.
> So y
> I've thought about constructing iptables rules to limit the number of
> SYN packets for the same host per second or such
Multiple flows to the same host don't really bother routers of any class.
Old routers choke when looking up many hosts in the routing table.
So your proposed rules against por
Hiho,
I am hosting a 3-5MB/s tor exit relay but as of today my hoster has
closed my server because of network scanning.
Is there a known proper way to protect yourself from being used as a
network scan relay?
I've thought about constructing iptables rules to limit the number of
SYN packets for th
Hi Roger,
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 02:58:54PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>
> Open questions we need to decide about:
>
> 1) What exactly would we pay for?
>
> I think the right way to do it is to offer to reimburse bandwidth/hosting
> costs -- I don't want to get into the business of paying p
On 31.07.2012 12:21, mick wrote:
> Question for tor developers. How hard would it be to change the logic
> (and syntax) of exit policy in tor to allow domain based formulations
> like:
>
> reject *.gmail.com
> reject *aol.com
We see webmail based spam reports from all kinds of addresses. The
bett
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:51:35 -0400
Steve Snyder allegedly wrote:
> Allowing exits from ports 80 and 443 will always carry the risk of
> abuse complaints.
>
> It would be better to retain 80 and 443 as exit ports and just block
> traffic to the Google/Yahoo/AOL/etc. mail servers but I don't how
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:11:17 +0200 Moritz Bartl
wrote:
>We sometimes see "Your computer is too slow to handle this many circuit
>creation requests!" on our servers. Scott Bennett suggested to set
>MaxOnionsPending to 250 instead of the default of 100, which at least
>makes the warnings disapp
17 matches
Mail list logo
