Re: ietf.org unaccessible for Tor users

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Wed, 16 March 2016 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE6E12D636 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cridland.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rszzRtncELki for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 149A112D6D2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id l68so181308722wml.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=JucdTJiJVnSOEcWGqZcjT8xDWk5tjDj2htakJTce+Ag=; b=kZWRzg95rWYdd2pFj97XDq9ZUciGF/map9Ij17v6snVMREBjCDfNAy3bMWJizJqdAk zi0hulHlxrvmDCTQ0IKEnstYhT4NXd3X/hlsGJ1g/mIuboz/lXlB5j3yn+fx7VO41JwF YbceC+tQeDg2ymfVVTvPyf/a4cjXHz1lDrfuI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=JucdTJiJVnSOEcWGqZcjT8xDWk5tjDj2htakJTce+Ag=; b=MbKL4cKKNcIHIsC9SuIGJgWCk9sezdfBU8qS95ZMNJ/2kaM8j00nHNo6226N2QfroA Xi9WduWMIQ2fuiSzIND16mnGy2JuHhYlUUzAjsyLXoJSUY8inPvewK2xhKgT0G3bVlyh 0Xnb4i8zn945CqxighxEUZQplVtqWLCV6n/DKHJp9fb5yAQ8h81u8RetpcFDcTF+UNIq jGW+sA2Rt5rFVUF0e+3kBMcFxmtUN2ZmjjJWeE44TyrzCgjdEBOEEczn083YjZJ5+0gc 48I/zmzA7zZXdVvePlprUlNpnjenc3Gvkx1ijrmSXtrAa/OeesU9NDetBcOichV6vMun TYmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLPLqeUjQpOyx4Rx5pMYuoh9sIkamuXKjEi2I1LKeBNtI3V8RuBoG1wMHc3bvJYU83q1RiKsxRwMhWPzLFS
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.189.231 with SMTP id gl7mr2676830wjc.162.1458121556639; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.37.199 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 02:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_i+yFhJVYvcMLSEgkOkqJjZBsQicCQsi13SaoVQuzxqc8g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56E90BF9.4090306@cisco.com> <871189680.1322359.1458113811142.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <CAHw9_i+yFhJVYvcMLSEgkOkqJjZBsQicCQsi13SaoVQuzxqc8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 09:45:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzyKbXKJhk8S3mFAFMKFCUwtUR3CtY+mGB_Fy8U0jF1UWw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ietf.org unaccessible for Tor users
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb046c06c5f67052e27618e
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7Eso7wPO-_RUMAXW8KEKPQbCCjs>
Cc: IETF Disgust List <ietf@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 09:46:00 -0000

On 16 March 2016 at 08:27, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:

> [ Intentional top post ]
> So, the original email (~65 messages ago!) raised the issue that ietf.org
> wasn't accessible over Tor because of the CAPTCHA.
>
> 29 emails ago Alec Muffett posted:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/mzh5xox0WGE4_KDeyJC0RpxTceY
>
> This said that CloudFlare treats Tor as a country, and you can twiddle the
> knob to whitelist / decrease the threat level assigned to the Tor
> "country".
>
> I haven't seen anything discussing this - while the current round of beard
> pulling provides me with much entertainment, perhaps we could *also*
> discuss twiddling the knob or, more productively, see if the folk
> responsible for keeping this running know about the knob? Presumably it
> could be twiddled until / unless the *IETF* actually sees pain from Tor?
>
>
That's a very sensible suggestion, and is therefore probably off topic for
this thread.


> W
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:39 PM <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The IETF is censoring gopher!
>>  Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk http://about.me/lloydwood
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
>> To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
>> Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>ca>; IETF Disgust List <
>> ietf@ietf.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, 16 March 2016, 18:32
>> Subject: Re: ietf.org unaccessible for Tor users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/16/16 8:06 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> > it is not ours to say what others should and should not read, or to
>> > which they should have easier access. to do so is called censorship.
>>
>> Nobody's prohibiting access to any of our public documents.  And as
>> someone pointed out elsewhere, if one wants to copy every last bit of
>> IETF documentation, they are able to do so and provide whatever access
>> they wish.  To my knowledge nobody else has raised the concern that that
>> the Tor people are raising, and so we are being asked to specifically
>> support Tor.  Fine.  That means we then need to consider the
>> benefit/harm of our actions regarding who precisely we are helping.  I
>> asked that question honestly without an answer, but with concerns.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>>