On 07/15/2018 01:21 PM, Conrad Rockenhaus wrote: > Hello, > >> Tor is designed in such a way that you can separately decide whether or >> not you want to contribute to the network, and also whether or not you >> are willing to deal with abuse notices. This is configured via exit >> policies. > > I never said that, I asked if people felt it was ethical to still > consider themselves contributing to "Full Free Speech" by running the > default exit policy then to start deviating from the default exit > policy and blocking items such as access to bittorrent. Basically, my > concern is I see a legitimate use of bittorrent, which is why I never > blocked it on my exits. Now I'm being forced to. I'm asking if other > people view themselves as "Full Free Speech" still or are we starting > to arbitrate free speech? >
Even when using the default exit policy you are blocking some ports. For example, SMTP on port 25. There are legitimate reasons to use port 25. You're already blocking those users that want to use 25. If you choose to define supporting Full Free Speech as allowing all traffic, you already stopped supporting FFS. Personally I'd rather support 99.9% of Tor users (made up percentage) forever than support 100% of Tor users for a limited time. I don't run the default exit policy on all my relays and I don't see anything wrong with my decision. Hope that helps. Thanks for running a relay(s). Matt PS: for reference, the default exit policy is as follows according to the Tor manual. https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-manual.html.en reject *:25 reject *:119 reject *:135-139 reject *:445 reject *:563 reject *:1214 reject *:4661-4666 reject *:6346-6429 reject *:6699 reject *:6881-6999 accept *:* _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
