Re: unaccessible for Tor users

Stephen Farrell <> Tue, 15 March 2016 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DF4F12DA73 for <>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uhMSNWeZu3MA for <>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 033A512D8AD for <>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 07:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6D8BE33; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:25:17 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OQHdL84ilNQE; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:25:16 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3348BE32; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:25:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1458051916; bh=C+MbAXBMPWxCm4EGp/czBEbBaCNmEuKbUB06W6fdzC4=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=3rwPHLVH52f6oYrO1MoP+sebjK86RtLCinrHS1m+bvK4MiW3dhAfyzJ/LUcM19HMu dHKDYJOMS/qzCvvU+vYhmwH1WHNHAKwu5YFDnqdsju7ukBl54QLiDK0vjTX7SRlEk2 pEbPHRVaCJEBi8f5CTiQTiTevX15ewYClDsvDDLg=
Subject: Re: unaccessible for Tor users
To: Eliot Lear <>, Michael Richardson <>, IETF Disgust List <>
References: <20160313143521.GC26841@Hirasawa> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:25:15 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tr1RBQrdR1T4Ht3u8Q6N8VAvD2opRsRun"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:25:26 -0000

On 15/03/16 14:13, Eliot Lear wrote:
> By providing the chaff 

We are not doing that. We are providing our usual web site is
all. That we need to turn off an additional control added by
CF is not the same as actively providing cover traffic.

> we are making a moral decision to
> help those who use Tor.  Have we done so consciously and is it the right
> one? 

I don't think we (the IETF) need to decide that. We need to
decide to re-level the field for exit nodes so that people
who access the IETF site via those hosts aren't discommoded.

Speaking personally, I'd answer your question with a yes, but
not on moral grounds, rather because Tor is one of the most
widely used privacy enhancing technologies; the IETF should
encourage use of such so that we learn how to make privacy
better on the Internet, so therefore we should, I think, be
actively encouraging its use so we learn more about it. I
don't think the IETF has established that as a consensus
position, but nor should we have to. It's fairly obvious I

I'd also say yes on moral grounds as it happens, but one yes
should be enough for everyone except Molly Bloom:-)