Hi James, Have you considered running a super restrictive exit policy? I had the same trouble you have, with EFF's restrictive exit policy. So I wrote my own, which also blocks port 80:
ExitPolicy accept *:443 ExitPolicy accept *:6667 ExitPolicy accept *:7000 ExitPolicy accept *:5222 ExitPolicy accept *:5223 ExitPolicy accept *:110 ExitPolicy accept *:143 ExitPolicy accept *:220 ExitPolicy accept *:993 ExitPolicy accept *:995 ExitPolicy accept *:9418 ExitPolicy accept *:53 ExitPolicy reject *:* Now I deal with maybe 1 complaint per quarter. And since 443 is still in there, it's still contributing substantially to the network (maybe more so than with port 80 enabled). Consider giving it a try ;-) Tom Op 04/12/2017 om 11:59 schreef James: > As a private individual, after just receiving my 4th abuse complaint in > as many days it's time to stop running my exit node. Prior to today I'd > receive on average 1-2 complaints a month (I had a fairly strict exit > policy). It saddens me that I have to shut it down, especially as it's > one of very few running on BSD, but I just don't have the time to > constantly respond to abuse complaints to ensure I don't get shut down > by the upstream provider. If there are any devs on this list, some kind > of mechanism to detect and block abuse traffic on exit would go a long > way to ensuring legitimate use of the network, that is after all why > people run exit nodes. It's at least why I did. > > Thank you to everyone else running an exit node. I hope you're able to > keep yours going for a lot longer than I. > > James > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
