RE: unaccessible for Tor users

Michel Py <> Tue, 15 March 2016 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B6212D65E for <>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uj117wzPHip8 for <>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50BB412DB64 for <>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newserver.arneill-py.local ([fe80::e9e0:5b4:170e:c286]) by newserver.arneill-py.local ([fe80::e9e0:5b4:170e:c286%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0279.002; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:25:57 -0700
From: Michel Py <>
To: 'John R Levine' <>
Subject: RE: unaccessible for Tor users
Thread-Topic: unaccessible for Tor users
Thread-Index: AQHRflFC8AA/Dp7z106dGFDxm4jeYp9aWcGAgACC0QD//9GTUA==
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:25:56 +0000
Message-ID: <F04ED1585899D842B482E7ADCA581B845754B682@newserver.arneill-py.local>
References: <> <20160315002604.15726.qmail@ary.lan> <> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1603150755160.47203@ary.lan>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1603150755160.47203@ary.lan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: [fe80::e9e0:5b4:170e:c286]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF <>
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 16:26:01 -0000

> Alec Muffett wrote :
> I suspect IETF use is atypical where Tor is concerned. Most sites probably just want to shut Tor exit nodes out.

This is something that Tor has failed to realize. Unlike the IETF, many sites have no requirement or need to talk to people in another continent who need to hide their identity.

> why pick on people who want to access the IETF over Tor?

I don't think the IETF picks on people. The IETF tries to protect itself against a known and very active attack vector.

> Perhaps you wish to make some kind of moral stand against network protocols which are sometimes used to do bad things?

It's not sometimes, it's all the time.

> John R Levine wrote :
> For all its noble intentions, most of the traffic that comes out of Tor is malicious.

I would not go as far as saying "most of the traffic" (as it implies some volume) but "most of the exit nodes are engaged in some malicious activity".

> (Any service that is anonymous and free has the same problems.)  Cloudmark and other providers
> don't block or filter it for political reasons, they do so to protect their users.

True. I don't use Cloudmark but I essentially do the same.