> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:03:33 +0000 > From: Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Troed S�ngberg wrote: > > I've advocated Freenet for a long time along my peers (I'm a > > professional Software Engineer, specialising in crypto/security issues) > > - and trying to get people to visit links to http://localhost:8888 isn't > > working. > > Just how are you trying to get people to visit such links? Verbally? > If so, I suspect that it might not be the "http://localhost:8888/"; part > of the URL that puts them off, but rather the > "[EMAIL PROTECTED],UUleYfXnBfLThNmkB8dACg" part might > be the bit with which they are having trouble. freenet:xxx URLs won't > change that, but they will introduce a world of pain. > > Freenet URLs are much more likely to be given to people in hyperlink > form, in which case the actual form of the URL isn't particularly > relevant. The whole freenet:xxx thing is purely cosmetic. > > Ian.
>From the perspective of once you are "in" Freenet then freenet:// vs. http://localhost:xxxx/ is quite cosmetic since you generally use neither and in fact spelling out the whole http://localhost... is frowned upon since it won't work for people using nondefault ports. However, it is in the transitioning between the Internet and Freenet where this seems to make a difference and it only makes a difference though if your proxy is not listening on port 8888 ... just like explicitly using http://localhost... in freesite links. freenet:// protocol handlers would be as useful as irc:// or mailto:// ... to avoid a cutting and pasting exercise. However, in the end, it is entirely up to the *Internet* content providers whether they want to use freenet:// (saving all the people who have set up protocol handlers and causing all the people who haven't some cutting and pasting) or hardcode in http://localhost:8888/ (saving all the people who run on the default port and causing all the people who don't some cut and paste). After you are *in* Freenet ... you don't use either anyways. Generally switching back and forth between the Internet and Freenet is somewhat risky to your anonymity anyways ... but that is something for people to work out personally. Either way, it is my understanding that the current proxy is agnostic about the whole freenet:// issue anyways. You can feed in a URI with or without a freenet:// prefix and it will work just fine. So at this point is becomes an issue as to whether there are simple instructions in order to set up all the popular browsers with prootocol handlers. With Mozilla, I think there is a project called protozilla that will handle this. I think that soneone even made a freenet:// protocol handler DLL for IE but I can't seem to track it down. Some links to chew on rather than go around in this circle again: http://protozilla.mozdev.org/ http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/928/2000/5/0/3709421/ http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00746.html http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/networking/pluggable/overview/overview.asp -- Michael Wiktowy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
