On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michael wrote: > >> Kyle Williams wrote: >> >>> reject 0.0.0.0/8:* <http://0.0.0.0/8:*> >>> reject 169.254.0.0/16:* <http://169.254.0.0/16:*> >>> reject 127.0.0.0/8:* <http://127.0.0.0/8:*> >>> reject 192.168.0.0/16:* <http://192.168.0.0/16:*> >>> reject 10.0.0.0/8:* <http://10.0.0.0/8:*> >>> reject 172.16.0.0/12:* <http://172.16.0.0/12:*> >>> reject 66.109.20.52:* >>> accept *:80 >>> accept *:443 >>> accept *:43 >>> reject *:* >>> >> >> Kyle, >> >> One more question if you would indulge my curiosity. What service was >> the course of the "spam"? >> >> Michael >> > > I'm replying to my own post because my comment makes me look like a > moron. > > I was wondering if the complaint was about abuse of whois servers or web > based services. > > Michael > Web based services. I see you caught was I was looking into. From what I was able to tell, the large amount of request to whois server where just that, lookups on a whois server. Yet, they take up a very small portion of the overall network traffic that moved through my node. I would have to say that blocking whois servers through Tor wouldn't help the speed of the overall network. I'll have more stats on this later. - Kyle
