At 06:45 PM 07/27/2002 -0500, Ed Onken wrote:
>This seems to be at least a bug in the JVM and/or kernel or something
>that the JVM uses for file IO. But, like I said, it was there, it
>disappeared and it's back again, so something apparently has changed to
>trigger it. Any ideas? I'm glad Gianni
The Distribution Servlet now includes the Windows installer. You need to
set the following config options:
services=fproxy,nodestatus,nodeinfo,distribution
distribution.class=freenet.node.http.DistributionServlet
distribution.port=8891
distribution.allowedHosts=*
# assuming you want to distrib
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 11:50:54PM +0300, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
>
> > Freenet DOES NOT WORK behind a NAT "firewall" if you do not tunnel (by
> > port forwarding.) It does not work, period, transient or not.
>
> Masquerading NATs do allow transient nodes
For any of you planning to attend DEFCON this weekend in Vegas, you can
see my pathetic attempt to fit a good overview of Freenet into a 50
minute time-slot at 5pm on Friday in the Privacy/Anonymity track.
Ian.
--
Ian Clarke[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Founder & Coo
Matthew Toseland schrieb:
>>>I want the installer to see it's in a directory with lib/freenet.jar,
>>>lib/freenet-ext.jar, and seednodes.ref, and then install using those
>>>rather than downloading.
>>
> Anyway, this is essential to improving routing and anonymity by reducing
> the number of nod
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 12:19:37PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I have seen a claim (on FMB) that one person can see more with build 489
> > than he could before. I've also seen claims that the noderefs that are
> > available to a transient n
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 12:19:37PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have seen a claim (on FMB) that one person can see more with build 489
> than he could before. I've also seen claims that the noderefs that are
> available to a transient node behind a NAT "firewall" are different from
> th
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 05:13:59PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> maxRoutingSteps should not include steps rejected because they point
> back to the requestor.
> Pro:
> Should prevent RouteNotFound, attempts were made to contact 0 nodes
> Con:
> Requests may get routed too far away from the idea
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 09:37:19AM +0200, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> >I want the installer to see it's in a directory with lib/freenet.jar,
> >lib/freenet-ext.jar, and seednodes.ref, and then install using those
> >rather than downloading.
>
> OK, let me summarize to se
I have seen a claim (on FMB) that one person can see more with build 489
than he could before. I've also seen claims that the noderefs that are
available to a transient node behind a NAT "firewall" are different from
the noderefs that are available to a non-transient node tunneling
through a
maxRoutingSteps should not include steps rejected because they point
back to the requestor.
Pro:
Should prevent RouteNotFound, attempts were made to contact 0 nodes
Con:
Requests may get routed too far away from the ideal route.
This is in the new build 490.
Comments? Revocation notices? Flames
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 09:29:07AM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
> On Sunday 28 July 2002 21:11, Matthew wrote:
>
> > > CVS now is at version 489, and this includes code to always route to a
> > random key on the first hop, at oskar's suggestion. This hopefully will
> > have the following benefi
On Sunday 28 July 2002 21:11, Matthew wrote:
> > CVS now is at version 489, and this includes code to always route to a
> random key on the first hop, at oskar's suggestion. This hopefully will
> have the following benefits:
> a) prevents the network from splitting, sows it back together when/if
13 matches
Mail list logo
