Interoperating with p2p traffic

[Matt Thorne]

That isn't a bad Idea, and possibly something that They (with help ofcourse
:-) could build into their P2P software. Probably not a bad thing for them
to lookinto just for their own use, not because We ask them to, but becuase
that would really mess with the heads of the people at (Insert 4 letter
accronym here).
 question:
 how do the people who feel posesive towards tor think about this idea?
 -=Matt=-

 On 10/12/05, Arrakistor <arrakistor at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What if we designated some type of tor family specifically for p2p
> content, and coordinated with the software developers?
>
>
>
>
> Hello Marc,
>
> Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 12:59:22 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Hi Matthias & group,
>
> > We'll never stop variant of disparately high bandwidth use. At best,
> > we'll level the ground a bit.
>
> > And I think that's sufficient. I suspect that a lot of p2p users won't
> > make the effort to defeat fairness provisions we may try to build in,
> > and I believe that p2p developers will ask that their software be used
> > responsibly (at least in terms of resource usage).
>
> > But this is why port number prioritization might also be helpful.
> > Casual BitTorrent users won't stray from the defaults. Tor's
> > documentation also can educate them as to the purpose of traffic
> > prioritization and ask for cooperation on this.
>
> > Marc
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 05:40, Matthias Fischmann wrote:
> > ...what about sybil attacks, though, ie. attacks that open many channels
> > in parallel, impersonating a large number of anonymous users?
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Arrakistor mailto:arrakistor at gmail.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20051012/6e00312c/attachment.htm>