IE (Windows) has a documented COM-based mechanism for creating freenet:// URLs. Microsoft uses it quite extensively (MSDN mk: URLs, outlook:// urls, res:// URLs for system messages, et id genus omne), and Napster B7 uses it for nap: URLs. (Try typing nap:whatever into your IE browser with Napster installed.) Netscape doesn't support that mechanism, but Mozilla is open source...
Yehuda -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:freenet-dev-admin at lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Oskar Sandberg Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 12:52 PM To: freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Freenet-dev] Plans for Client On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Vesa Salento wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Brandon wrote: > > > > > So - the proxy/servlet will have to convert all instances of 'freenet:..' > > > in the returned text (when the MIME type is text/html) to > > > 'http://localhost:<some-port>/..' or 'http://freenet/..' if we use an HTTP > > > proxy. Ug-ly. > > > > The cgi client (FCRC) interprets relative links as links into Freenet. It > > works well. > > This conversation of using browsers and http to get files from the Freenet > is IMO somewhat questionable. This would mean at least for most of Windows > users that they would type the key to the browser and after that I suppose > there is no use of talking about anonymous or secure transfers. If the browser is being used as a front end to display the information, and is only connecting to your own Freenet node, it has no impact on security. Since hypertext happens to be a very good interface and the perfect decentralized namespace, we would be idiots NOT to provide for a way for people to surf freenet using existing hypertext browsers. There are limits of course. A freenet browser would have to refuse to load any images or other data not on freenet imbedded in a freenet document, and warn before following links to other non-freenet documents, since somebody could insert links to a monitored site in order to identify people reading a document. Most browsers already warn when entering and leaving SHTTP, so there is no reason Freenet can't work the same way. > I don't know what is the current situation but I don't much trust the IE > and since we cannot be sure how browsers work and what kind of information > they collect or how vulnerable they are now (or in the future) I don't > like this thing at all. In the worst case there would be a reference to > every file you have requested on the browsers history file and I don't > like that kinds of things. There are plenty of good reasons to be paranoid in the world, but thinking that MS is spying on you with IE is just silly. If big evil Bill is out to get you and you are running Windows, he might as well put in code to spy on a dedicated Freenet app as well. All browsers I have used allow one to turn off cache and history if one is worried about that. If you don't trust Microsoft, you shouldn't be running your life with software who's workings they purposely keep hidden from you. > I'd suggest that we implement our own clients and before making any > plugins for other softwares it is needed to discuss whether that will > compromise the goals of this project. Peoples security choices are there own responsibility. The wise user of Freenet will use a browser it can trust (Mozilla, Galeon, Konquerer, lynx) with a safe configuration. The unwise user should wisen up or nothing we do will be able to help him. > Vesa > > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev -- \oskar _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
