On Saturday 26 January 2008 19:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Jan 26, 2008 12:55 PM, Michael Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Maybe it would help if we would be able to retrieve a KSK without to > > > retrieve the underlying CHK. Then we could check the underlying > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] key if we already know this key. In this case we could > > > choose > > > to not to retrieve the CHK and therefore stop pushing the request > > > stats for this CHK? I don't know if this makes any sense. > > > > If we've already retrieved the CHK it will be in the cache, so > > retrieving it again won't do much except pull it to the top of the > > cache. But I think you're onto something - is the signature in the KSK > > or the CHK? If it's in the KSK, maybe Frost could check the signature > > and choose not to retrieve the CHK if the message won't be displayed > > anyway (eg the identity's status is CHECK and the user has configured > > that board to hide CHECK identities)? > > If you mean the signature that Frost creates and checks, its of course > in the data, in the CHK. > I don't know if there is a signature or filehash in the KSK, but I > know that we can't retrieve > a KSK or its properties via fcp2 currently. When we retrieve a KSK, > the CHK is always retrieved > and we only get the data. There is no way to store or retrieve > application data inside a KSK (or CHK).
You could insert a binary KSK (no mime type, application/octet-stream) which includes some frost metadata including a signature and a pointer to the real payload - an application level redirect (must be <1kB after the node gzip's it). Then you could verify the signature and not download the message if don't-show-CHECK-messages was turned off for that board??? > > > Cheers, > > Michael
pgpJCFldpHaxd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
