On Friday 07 August 2009 09:39:53 VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: > Alex Pyattaev wrote: > > Hm, Colin, probably you are right. Those who actually need a tunnel can > > set it up theirselves anyway (e.g. via SSH). And those who can not set > > up a tunnel via ssh, probably will be happy with zero-configuration > > proxy for web access. > > And, there is an political issue about tunnels to the internet from the > > freenet. Now it is impossible to use freenet as a massive anonymous > > proxy. Probably, that's for good, since the first people to use such > > system would be hackers and spammers, who actually need to have full > > anonymous access to the internet. > > So probably it is better to leave it "just HTTP" for now. > > My university is blocking IRC (via a packet shaper), so when i have heard of > that idea that was the first thing i thought about. > > While i do agree that perhaps we should allow every protocol to pass through, > limiting it only to HTTP is too much i think.
They are two separate questions.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
