On Sunday 09 August 2009 04:28:27 Clément wrote: > Le dimanche 09 août 2009 03:31:09, Jonas Bengtsson a écrit : > > On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 03:04:31 +0200 > > > > Clément <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Le vendredi 07 août 2009 00:38:50, Matthew Toseland a écrit : > > > > On Thursday 06 August 2009 22:18:59 Clément wrote: > > > > > Le jeudi 06 août 2009 21:27:41, Matthew Toseland a écrit : > > > > > > On Thursday 06 August 2009 16:33:04 Evan Daniel wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Matthew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toseland<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I propose that as a darknet value-add, and as an additional > > > > > > > > tool for those in hostile regimes who have friends on the > > > > > > > > outside, we implement a web-proxy-over-your-darknet-peers > > > > > > > > option. Your Friends would announce whether they are willing to > > > > > > > > proxy for you, and you could choose which friends to use, or > > > > > > > > allow it to use all of them (assuming people on the inside > > > > > > > > don't offer). You could then configure your browser to use > > > > > > > > Freenet as a proxy. This would not provide any anonymity but it > > > > > > > > would get you past network obstacles and/or out of Bad Place > > > > > > > > and into Happy Place. It's not a long term solution, but: - We > > > > > > > > have expended considerable effort on making darknet viable: IP > > > > > > > > detection, ARKs etc. - It could take advantage of future > > > > > > > > transport plugins, but even before that, FNP 0.7 is quite hard > > > > > > > > to block. - Many people are in this situation. > > > > > > > > - It is easy to implement. HTTP is complex but cache-less > > > > > > > > proxies can be very simple. - It could be combined with longer > > > > > > > > term measures (growing the internal darknet), and just work for > > > > > > > > as long as it works. Most likely it would be throttled rather > > > > > > > > than blocked outright to start with, hopefully allowing for a > > > > > > > > smooth-ish migration of users to more robust mechanisms... - We > > > > > > > > could allow recursive proxying to some depth - maybe friend of > > > > > > > > a friend. This would provide a further incentive to grow the > > > > > > > > internal darknet, which is what we want. - The classic problem > > > > > > > > with proxies is that they are rare so hundreds of people > > > > > > > > connect to them, and the government finds out and blocks them. > > > > > > > > This does not apply here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like it. Darknet features are a very good thing. This > > > > > > > probably also needs some care wrt bandwidth management (related > > > > > > > to 3334 -- similar considerations probably apply). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, as I mentioned on IRC, there are several things I think > > > > > > > should be higher priority. Of course, I'm not the one > > > > > > > implementing any of this, but here's my opinion anyway ;) In no > > > > > > > particular order: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Documentation! Both the plugins api and making sure that the > > > > > > > FCP docs on the wiki are current and correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will try to spend some time on this soon... > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Bloom filter sharing. (Probably? I have no idea what the > > > > > > > relative work required is for these two.) > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed, this is a big one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Freetalk and a blogging app of some sort (though these are > > > > > > > probably mostly for someone other than toad?). > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of things I can do to help p0s. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - A few specific bugs: 3295 (percent encoding is horribly, > > > > > > > embarrassingly broken -- in at least 5 different ways), 2931 > > > > > > > (split blocks evenly between splitfile segments -- should help > > > > > > > dramatically with availability), fixing top block healing on > > > > > > > splitfiles (discussed in 3358). > > > > > > > > > > > > Skeptical on priority re 3295, but I guess I should look into it. > > > > > > IMHO it is critical that the top block be redundant, hence MHKs. > > > > > > Dunno re relative priority with f2f web proxy though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Low-latency inserts flag as per 3338. (I know, most people > > > > > > > probably don't care all that much, but I'd really like to see > > > > > > > whether Freenet can hit near-real-time latencies for the > > > > > > > messaging app I'm working on.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it's worth considering other ways to make darknet > > > > > > > connections more useful (in addition to this, whether before or > > > > > > > after I don't have a strong opinion on). Enabling direct > > > > > > > transfer of large files would be good (at a bare minimum, this > > > > > > > shouldn't fail silently like it does right now). > > > > > > > > > > > > ljb is working on this as we speak. The problem is simply > > > > > > persistence - if the node restarts before you accept the transfer, > > > > > > it will break. But he will do some improvements to the UI as well > > > > > > e.g. showing the transfers on the downloads page. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Improving messaging would be good; I should be able to > > > > > > > see recently sent / received messages (including timestamps), > > > > > > > queue a message to be sent when a peer comes online, and tell > > > > > > > whether a message I've sent arrived successfully. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think most of this is within ljb's remit? ljb? vive? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Evan Daniel > > > > > > > > > > Is there any defined roadmap for 0.8 yet ? If not, it might be good > > > > > to clear things up, and decides which features are must have and > > > > > which aren't. For instance, a F2F proxy is a great idea, but it's > > > > > another feature plan on top of an already good filled list. It gives > > > > > the impression of unconsistency (I said "impression" ;) ) > > > > > > > > Well, it is low cost and high impact IMHO... > > > > > > RIght. > > > > > > > > (Also, I'm not on irc since a while, so I don't know what's really > > > > > happening, so if this question has already been answered, just ignore > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > > :) ) > > > > > > > > Okay, this is my current view, but other people may have different > > > > views... > > > > > > > > What is definitely in: (I will be very unhappy about releasing if these > > > > are not resolved) - Work so far. > > > > - Bloom filter sharing. > > > > - Freetalk and/or WoT. I will assist p0s to break any blockages, but at > > > > the moment it is still essentially his project. - Workarounds for the > > > > recent AES issues. > > > > - Means to download the latest installer from a Freenet node. > > > > > > > > What is definitely out: (postponed to 0.9 or later) > > > > - Transport plugins. > > > > - Encrypted tunnels. > > > > - Passive requests. > > > > > > > > GSoC stuff: > > > > - sashee's work on dynamic UI should be part of 0.8 hopefully. > > > > - mikeb's work on XMLLibrarian is already part of it to some degree, > > > > more will be. - ljb's work on f2f stuff is partly merged and more will > > > > be. > > > > > > Will that be sufficient to change the friends ui ? > > > I was thinking of that : > > > http://doc-fr.freenetproject.org/Fproxy_mockup#My_Friends_.21 > > > in particular. > > > > Adding profile information is not hard. But I don't think that it is a > > good idea to let strangers see the profile, even if it can be made > > optional. It is bad enough that strangers knows our IP. > > > Well, it depends. It's like the security levels, users should be able to > choose how much they want to be anonymous. > Basically, there are three options : > 1) don't publish a profile at all > 2) publish a profile, just for you friends > 3) publish a public profile (for those who don't care if someone know that > they're using freenet), accessible to all yoou darknet (friends, friends of > friends, etc.)
How about to some number of hops? Who do you want your profile to be visible to? Dropdown: Nobody (0 hops) // We need this so people can temporarily disable their profile quickly imho Friends (1 hops) // Default option Friends of friends (2 hops) // Maybe default for lower seclevels? Friends of friends of friends (3 hops) ... Everyone (infinite hops) Of course we may only implement browsing friends of friends...? > I don't see any threat here : people just know who you are (if you put the > right infos on the profile) and know that you're running freenet (but a lot > of > people run both darknet and opennent) but they can't know what you're > actually > doing on freenet. > > This could probably be implemented relatively quickly. I can implement > > this if I have time over. > > > That would be great imo (and sorry, it didn't came up to my mind before, I > kinda forgot about this, and besides, I didn't know the gsoc was ending in > two > weeks). > > The chat functionality could be improved. At the moment when a text > > message is received an UserAlert is registered. It's quite easy to let > > each received text message be an event. The alert on the alerts page > > could be a summary of all sent and received text messages. I can also > > implement this if I have time over. Agreed. There are more ways to improve it but that would help. The persistent transfers thing is probably the priority now though.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
