Yeah, someone had already suggested N2NTMs between opennet peers on IRC, but to me, that would not only discourage the adoption of darknet peerings but also, for purposes of establishing a darknet connection, it would be starting at the extreme opposite end of the trust scale (in my book) than a darknet peering needs to be, rather than an otherwise neutral position. Imagine attackers using opennet to pick your node and then using N2NTMs to build a "trust" relationship with you to get a darknet peering with you, which you might then think of a "trustworthy" and "secure". (I'd definitely have the fact that I met them on opennet in my private peer note on that peer.)
Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> I had assumed that N2NMs were a mechanism for clients (including fproxy, >> which >> is an internal client) to communicate with each other. N2NMs are therefore >> only useful on darknet, since on opennet there is no reason to talk to other >> local clients - >> > > I was going to suggest N2N chat between opennet peers, perhaps with an > eye to establishing a darknet connection. But there's a danger that, > since it's Freenet, users will assume they're anonymous when chatting... > and there doesn't seem much point offering a friendly service like N2N > chat if it has to be plastered in warnings. > _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
