Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

[Ted Smith]

On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 17:41 +0000, John Case wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Ted Smith wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, but this has been a long thread and I want to try to make
> sure I
> > understand something important.
> >
> > Is it true or false that traffic was actually exiting through
> > gatereloaded et all?
> >
> > I recall seeing that those nodes weren't marked as exits in the
> > consensus anyway. If that is the case, then all of John Case's
> arguments
> > related to super-secret movie-plot usages of Tor and servers running
> on
> > port 80 only accessible through gatereloaded et all seem to be
> > irrelevant.
> 
> 
> And therefore will always be irrelevant, never affecting a single ToR user 
> into the infinite future. 

Is there an or-parliament list I should be on if I want to be an
Official Tor Project Legislator, making these *important policy
decisions* that affect Tor into the *infinite future*?

I know it's easier to send emails about something incredibly unimportant
to inflate one's own ego than it is to actually get shit done, but this
is ridiculous.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20110214/2e385703/attachment.pgp>