Delivery-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:02:21 -0400
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [38.229.72.13])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F02A1E0B89;
	Fri,  1 Aug 2014 13:02:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B182B3025A;
	Fri,  1 Aug 2014 17:02:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D06C30203
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Fri,  1 Aug 2014 17:02:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eugeni.torproject.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id yKvlAlwhlzXR for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Fri,  1 Aug 2014 17:02:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ob0-x236.google.com (mail-ob0-x236.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::236])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53CBA301FD
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Fri,  1 Aug 2014 17:02:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id wm4so2799210obc.13
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
 :from:to:content-type;
 bh=MCOxyZLOhYr3RU3QP8HVHRjI+jOqZu21074jZvPsfUU=;
 b=0j9D3JewzLUWLCdgSh1rV/O/6rjCIM6Ih2MkzHS5Mucxgb0uRChX8RwWLZuU06GS1N
 li6or5A2NrMStKj7w337CTpbl6flTRQzoVX0y9gNdMzGJgC8hSH9T8oO0FQkBGS+72T/
 4XKsMUmFiDoL4a8rqu8Zxx490nVgtE6YdYdiAIsYW0gyDD+w0KkXoOOXQ+ryvTtd6mdk
 mqCA9NCG7VuNw90p8my8mjbeQsaOYmPmp7T6nspLZNq3/Ym7/Z/pl/wOZJ9W/3zcf8Ro
 JodpXqSP/B07ttd2kRFcXpPMTERIlwXodtM3IKdZcKUaGA3qEMzLWDC060moedG8ioN9
 rnIQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.112.134 with SMTP id iq6mr9955833obb.34.1406912529850;
 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.224.84 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140731203519.GF8819@moria.seul.org>
References: <53D980B1.9020009@bitmessage.ch> <20140731002741.GB16023@nymity.ch>
 <53DA9757.2050602@bitmessage.ch> <20140731201233.GA23456@nymity.ch>
 <20140731203519.GF8819@moria.seul.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 10:02:09 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: YCmup_cBSeOYLX6mbiZo-1LFvTU
Message-ID: <CAJdkzEMCf8tc3phdckJhUq0sz0VkGd8oXSGTWJ2OEVfAJpgQHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Damian Johnson <atagar@torproject.org>
To: Tor Mailing List <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Why make bad-relays a closed mailing list?
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

> I think this is a really important point.
>
> I'm usually on the side of transparency, and screw whether publishing
> our methods and discussions impacts effectiveness.
>
> But in this particular case I'm stuck, because the arms race is so
> lopsidedly against us.
>
> We can scan for whether exit relays handle certain websites poorly,
> but if the list that we scan for is public, then exit relays can mess
> with other websites and know they'll get away with it.

Hi Roger. Philipp made a good point on irc that there's a couple
different topics being discussed here:

* Who we flag as a bad relay and why.
* How we find bad relays.

Philipp and my interest I think is in making the former public (as
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/badRelays was trying
to do), but leave the later to the discretion of the scanner's writer
(Philipp in the case of ExitMap). I'd like for us to be transparent
about bad relay flagging, but I can certainly understand if our
detection methods need some secrecy.

You seem to be arguing for secrecy of the scanners so we might be on
the same page. Does anyone want to argue against making who we flag
and why public?

Cheers! -Damian
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

