Hey Florentin,
That is great to hear!
I always include the argument that I am complying with their wishes. But
it is totally pointless as I am not the only exit node.
If they are truly interested in stopping abuse/attacks, they can block
all exit nods as they are publicly provided by tor.
But
Hi Maarten (and others who answered back),
I got a few more mail exchange with them. I tried to educate a bit and
it seems they agreed (not explicitly) that the right to privacy is
something that should not be removed to people due to the illegal
actions of a few others. They told me to be
On 14.03.2017 15:36, Juuso Lapinlampi wrote:
> My concern with this is the liability on operator. In Finland (and
> Europe?)
Yes, this is "harmonized" and modelled after the US DMCA law, in Europe
in the "e-Commerce directive" respectively the federal implementations.
See
Hi Florentin,
Read the policy of your hoster.
I had the same situation and already configured a reduced exit policy.
So I just changed my exit policy. Now I do not relay to their entire IP
block on port 80 anymore. So it can't happen again..
My hoster was fine with that.
Along with this I
If its an exit just use the reduced reduced exit policy - I dont get any abuse
complaints apart from those heroes at webiron
Cheers
Mark B
Snaptor.co.uk (non commercial)
> On 14 Mar 2017, at 14:36, Juuso Lapinlampi wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 02:17:14PM +0100,
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 02:17:14PM +0100, Moritz Bartl wrote:
> about it" might not be the best argument here either: I suggest you
> block the destination IP address(es) for some weeks via ExitPolicy, let
My concern with this is the liability on operator. In Finland (and
Europe?), the limited
Hi list,
I am running Kadoc[0] for a few weeks and got today a more aggressive
complain from a System Administrator of my VPS provider. I seek for an
appropriate response to not get banned. Does someone experienced a
similar scenario and succeeded to educate the sys admins ? Here's the