On 05.10.2016 14:06, oco...@email.cz wrote: > Unfortunately for us (as an ISP) it's not just about passing these > messages. If we don't want to be accused from not stopping something > illegal we knew about, we need some feedback - what have been done to > prevent this to happen in the future.
If you pass on the complaint to me, I'll give you the feedback that I will deal with it (using "you" and "I" as examples, obviously). While I do have the responsibility to verify that my server has not been compromised, I am not obliged to provide detailed information on how I deal with complaints. Also, just because some complaining party does not like the traffic passing through my server, it does not mean that I automatically have a legally binding obligation to prevent that traffic. Don't get me wrong, I do take complaints seriously, and I always strive to work with my ISPs to resolve issues in an amicable manner. However, I do that because I choose to be a good netizen. Sometimes I don't do anything at all, because it either does not make any sense or would violate the "just passing through" concept (e.g. I never use any form of traffic content inspection). > It's really time consuming and that's why I would like to combine tor > with some IPS for automation of the "policy set process". I can see what motivates you. Personally, I can't think of a scenario where I would use automation to set outbound traffic policies (inbound traffic is a different matter, fail2ban comes to mind). I am interested in other people's opinion regarding the prospect of an automated tool to generate exit policies. -Ralph _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
