Re: ietf.org unaccessible for Tor users

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 16 March 2016 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 E449B12D67F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5ELxfVwQZDDQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 4B32612D584 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u2GKUH2M035202 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:30:17 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local
Subject: Re: ietf.org unaccessible for Tor users
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160313143521.GC26841@Hirasawa> <m2a8m0y72q.wl%randy@psg.com> <F04B3B85-6B14-43BA-9A21-FC0A31E79065@piuha.net> <56E7E09D.7040100@cisco.com> <4349AFDD-350C-4217-9BEE-3DBD2F608F95@nohats.ca> <27177.1458050662@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <m2k2l3qud5.wl%randy@psg.com> <56E90304.3050407@cisco.com> <m2bn6eq59r.wl%randy@psg.com> <56E904A7.80200@cisco.com> <m2a8lyq4ud.wl%randy@psg.com> <56E90BF9.4090306@cisco.com> <56E9AC23.8060109@nostrum.com> <56E9B436.2090203@cisco.com> <56E9B543.9080000@nostrum.com> <56E9B5FF.1080301@cisco.com> <56E9B836.9080601@nostrum.com> <56E9C0CA.7040006@comcast.net>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <56E9C258.7000108@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:30:16 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56E9C0CA.7040006@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tq3AxXpjr7RJgYKtpHZVfTQ8zsQ>
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 20:30:25 -0000

On 3/16/16 15:23, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 3/16/2016 3:47 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> As is the nature of a service used by people who need to stay 
>> anonymous for their own safety,
>
> There's the set of TOR users, and there's the subset of TOR users that 
> need to have the property of "anonymity for safety",  and then there's 
> the set of people who need/want access to the IETF.
>
> Could you provide an educated guess on the size of the intersection of 
> those last two sets?   1?  10s? 100s? 1000s? More?   I'm trying to 
> understand the amount of hyperbole being slung about.

I'm just going to put back the second half of the sentence that you cut 
off in your quote above: "you're not going to find a lot in the way of 
data or anecdote here."

> Finally, are there any other methods  besides Tor you can think of 
> that would give "anonymity for safety" while still providing access to 
> the IETF data? (Hint: asking a friend to photocopy paper or send you a 
> usb stick.... or...)

I propose you limit yourself to those methods of participation for a 
suitably long time period -- say, a year or so -- and then report back 
with your experiences of whether you think it posed an unreasonable barrier.

/a