diff --git a/doc/spec/proposals/159-exit-scanning.txt b/doc/spec/proposals/159-exit-scanning.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..e4fddce3c0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/spec/proposals/159-exit-scanning.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+Filename: 159-exit-scanning.txt
+Title: Exit Scanning
+Version: $Revision$
+Last-Modified: $Date$
+Author: Mike Perry
+Created: 13-Feb-2009
+Status: Open
+
+Overview:
+
+This proposal describes the implementation and integration of an
+automated exit node scanner for scanning the Tor network for malicious,
+misconfigured, firewalled or filtered nodes.
+
+Motivation:
+
+Tor exit nodes can be run by anyone with an Internet connection. Often,
+these users aren't fully aware of limitations of their networking
+setup.  Content filters, antivirus software, advertisements injected by
+their service providers, malicious upstream providers, and the resource
+limitations of their computer or networking equipment have all been
+observed on the current Tor network.
+
+It is also possible that some nodes exist purely for malicious
+purposes.  In the past, there have been intermittent instances of
+nodes spoofing SSH keys, as well as nodes being used for purposes of
+plaintext surveillance.
+
+While it is not realistic to expect to catch extremely targeted or
+completely passive malicious adversaries, the goal is to prevent
+malicious adversaries from deploying dragnet attacks against large
+segments of the Tor userbase.
+
+
+Scanning methodology:
+
+The first scans to be implemented are HTTP, HTML, Javascript, and
+SSL scans.
+
+The HTTP scan scrapes Google for common filetype urls such as exe, msi,
+doc, dmg, etc. It then fetches these urls through Non-Tor and Tor, and
+compares the SHA1 hases of the resulting content.
+
+The SSL scan downloads certificates for all IPs a domain will locally
+resolve to and compares these certificates to those seen over Tor. The
+scanner notes if a domain had rotated certificates locally in the
+results for each scan.
+
+The HTML scan checks HTML, Javascript, and plugin content for
+modifications. Because of the dynamic nature of most of the web, the
+scanner has a number of mechanisms built in to filter out false
+positives that are used when a change is noticed between Tor and
+Non-Tor.
+
+All tests also share a URL-based false positive filter that
+automatically removes results retroactively if the number of failures
+exceeds a certain percentage of nodes tested with the URL.
+
+
+Deployment Stages:
+
+To avoid instances where bugs cause us to mark exit nodes as BadExit
+improperly, it is proposed that we begin use of the scanner in stages.
+
+1. Manual Review:
+
+  In the first stage, basic scans will be run by a small number of
+  people while we stabilize the scanner. The scanner has the ability
+  to resume crashed scans, and to rescan nodes that fail various
+  tests.
+
+2. Human Review:
+
+  In the second stage, results will be automatically mailed to
+  an email list of interested parties for review. We will also begin
+  classifying failure types into three to four different severity
+  levels, based on both the reliability of the test and the nature of
+  the failure.
+
+3. Automatic BadExit Marking:
+
+  In the final stage, the scanner will begin marking exits depending
+  on the failure severity level in one of three different ways: by
+  node idhex, by node IP, or by node IP mask. A potential fourth, less
+  severe category of results may still be delivered via email only for
+  review.
+
+  BadExit markings will be delivered in batches upon completion
+  of whole-network scans, so that the final false positive
+  filter has an opportunity to filter out URLs that exhibit
+  dynamic content beyond what we can filter.
+
+
+Specification of Exit Marking:
+
+Technically, BadExit could be marked via SETCONF AuthDirBadExit over
+the control port, but this would allow full access to the directory
+authority configuration and operation.
+
+The approved-routers file could also be used, but currently it only
+supports fingerprints, and it also contains other data unrelated to
+exit scanning that would be difficult to coordinate.
+
+Instead, we propose that a new badexit-routers file that has three
+keywords:
+
+  BadExitNet 1*[exitpattern from 2.3 in dir-spec.txt]
+  BadExitFP 1*[hexdigest from 2.3 in dir-spec.txt]
+
+BadExitNet lines would follow the codepaths used by AuthDirBadExit to
+set authdir_badexit_policy, and BadExitFP would follow the codepaths
+from approved-router's !badexit lines.
+
+The scanner would have exclusive ability to write, append, rewrite,
+and modify this file. Prior to building a new consensus vote, a
+participating Tor authority would read in a fresh copy.
+
+
+Security Implications:
+
+Aside from evading the scanner's detection, there are two additional
+high-level security considerations:
+
+1. Ensure nodes cannot be marked BadExit by an adversary at will
+
+It is possible individual website owners will be able to target certain
+Tor nodes, but once they begin to attempt to fail more than the URL
+filter percentage of the exits, their sites will be automatically
+discarded.
+
+Failing specific nodes is possible, but scanned results are fully
+reproducible, and BadExits should be rare enough that humans are never
+fully removed from the loop.
+
+State (cookies, cache, etc) does not otherwise persist in the scanner
+between exit nodes to enable one exit node to bias the results of a
+later one.
+
+2. Ensure that scanner compromise does not yield authority compromise
+
+Having a separate file that is under the exclusive control of the
+scanner allows us to heavily isolate the scanner from the Tor
+authority, potentially even running them on separate machines.
+