[tor-relays] Exit probability

2017-10-29 Thread Dr Gerard Bulger
How is exit probability counted? Is it only port 80 exit tested? I exit many 1000s of ports, including 443, but not those of high risk of abuse emails and thus upsetting the ISP. So port 80 along with others are blocked. I realise no port 80 limits the use of the exit so not expecting so

Re: [tor-relays] sum of consensus weight of 2 relays running at the same IP

2017-10-29 Thread teor
On 29 Oct 2017, at 23:30, Toralf Förster wrote: >> On 10/29/2017 01:24 PM, teor wrote: >> Possibly. >> >> Are the relays CPU-limited, or bandwidth-limited? > > Not at all, neither limited by a config value nor by the hardware (1GBit/s, > 200 MBit/s guaranteed, i7-3930,

Re: [tor-relays] UbuntuCore

2017-10-29 Thread tor
> These nodes are popping up everywhere - is this some sort of malware being > deployed on systems around the globe? Interesting. It does look like malware to me. - all running Tor 0.3.1.7 on Linux - diverse AS / IP allocation, mostly looks like ISP end-subscriber - same exit policy (reject

Re: [tor-relays] UbuntuCore

2017-10-29 Thread Roger Dingledine
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 03:23:07AM +, Paul Templeton wrote: > These nodes are popping up everywhere - is this some sort of malware being > deployed on systems around the globe? It is an Ubuntu snap package. See this thread:

[tor-relays] UbuntuCore

2017-10-29 Thread Paul Templeton
These nodes are popping up everywhere - is this some sort of malware being deployed on systems around the globe? Paul ___ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

[tor-relays] "Fast" flag definition

2017-10-29 Thread Igor Mitrofanov
Hi, It looks like 94.7% of all Running relays have the "Fast" flag now. If that percentage becomes 100%, the flag will become meaningless. What were the reasons behind the current definition of "Fast", and are those still valid? If not, should "Fast" become self-adjusting ("faster than 2 Mbps or