Is "gatereloaded" a Bad Exit?

[Orionjur Tor-admin]

morphium wrote:
> 2011/1/31 Olaf Selke <olaf.selke at blutmagie.de>:
>> I disagree Morphium's position mainly for the same reasons Mike and Jake
>> already pointed out. If the operators really care about their nodes
>> they'll certainly contact Tor admins. Damaging Tor's reputation in the
>> public due to exit sniffing imo is much more worse than loosing some
>> bandwidth.
> 
> Sniffing is worse than loosing bandwidth, right. But sniffing still
> occurs, we just don't know where. And we can't tell wether they did.
> I think concluding "only 80: he is sniffing" is wrong (and even would
> be "80 and 443: he is a good guy").
> And if those nodes really are ran by "the bad guys", I don't think
> it's a problem for them now to setup a new node on a new subnet that
> allows their old ports + 443 and continue sniffing.
> 
> I can not see the Tor project won _anything_ with this decision.
> 
> morphium
> ***********************************************************************
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo at torproject.org with
> unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
> 


And, then, it seems to me that it is no a big problem to exclude
packages with encrypted information from sniffing logs for people who
setting up nodes for that evil purposes.
But, in the other side, it seems to me that guys which set up so such
fast nodes are not full lamers. And they probably can read this mailing
list and are able to answer us, am I wrong?
As concern to me, if I read some bad about my nodes here I will write
something to answer, no?

***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo at torproject.org with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/