Please! I am not participate in this forum anymore! Any e mail that coming after this will be reported to Uk intelligence police (M15) Be aware pls with all posts or e mails here ! Have a nice weekend to all
> On 15 Jan 2014, at 22:23, Paul Görgen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Apparently even with the lowered rate from time to time the abuse system will > complain. > > I just received an abuse message from Hetzner even though now running with > the reduced rate. Just so you know. Next time this happens I will try to > escalate the problem by not solving it in the framework of the automated > abuse reports. Instead I will put the info about what I do into the trouble > ticket of the abuse message and put a strong plea to contact me about if and > how they can stop flagging it as abuse. > > Best regards > > Paul > >> On 15.01.2014 16:41, [email protected] wrote: >>> On 01/15/2014 07:00 AM, Anupam Das wrote: >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> We are very sorry to hear about the problems our measurements caused. Up >>> until yesterday, we had received no reports of them triggering these >>> kinds of responses from providers. However, yesterday we heard a very >>> similar story from another relay operator using Hetzner. >>> >>> Thanks for sharing your experience with the tor-relays community. We >>> have also updated our FAQ to inform contributors about this potential >>> problem. >>> >>> Also, we'd like to help others avoid this while still providing useful >>> measurements, if possible. Have you gotten any feedback from Hetzner >>> about what rule was triggered and maybe how to avoid it? Do you have any >>> ideas about how one might stay below their radar? If it is something >>> simple like reducing the measurement rate that would be a great option >>> to prevent problems while still providing valuable data about the the >>> Tor network. >>> >>> We do still hope that most relay operators will be willing to give this >>> project a shot. We have received data from over 90 separate IP addresses >>> and have gotten 2 negative reports so far, although certainly the issues >>> could be more widespread without us being aware. We don't want to add to >>> the headaches that can result from running a Tor relay, but on the other >>> hand Tor relay operators are probably pretty adept at handling this kind >>> of stuff. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Anupam >> >> Hi again, >> >> Anupam I wish I knew how to run the script and avoid any complaints from >> Hetzner. Unfortunately Hetzner didn't give us any helpful info. We even >> asked them explicitly if rate limiting would be a solution, but there >> was no answer on that. >> >>> On 01/15/2014 02:20 PM, Paul Görgen wrote: >>> Finally scamper was defunct, presumably due to being stopped two times, >>> so I restarted the whole Trusted Tor Traceroutes script on monday with >>> PPS=200 (reducing the traceroute rate to 1/5 of the default value). So >>> far I did not receive any machine generated abuse reports. I assume the >>> packet rate is now below the limit of what the monitoring thinks is a >>> netscan. I will report back if I should receive another abuse report >>> connected to the experiment. >> >> Paul's answer may indicate that imposing a rate limit to the script's >> requests might do the trick. >> >> Greetings. >> Alex >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> tor-relays mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > > -- > Paul Görgen > Dieburger Straße 94a, Mobile +4917620181608 > 64287 Darmstadt http://www.pgoergen.de > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
