On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:16:37PM -0700, coderman wrote: > "Mark J. Roberts" wrote: > > > > If the descriptions are actually descriptive, my evil nodes will not be > > able to imitate them very well. So the user could plausibly pick out the > > bogus replies and Unrequest them. But I suspect that users often will > > simply use the filename as the description, or some simple permutation > > of it. And that can be faked. > > It is also interesting to consider what happens when a large number of hits > are found. > The user would have to actually retrieve the files in order to determine if > they are valid > or not. So, you may spam a large number of queries, and much of it will go > unnoticed in > such a situation, and this would further increase the apparent validity of > the spammed > results. > > At least, that is my understanding.
I have no idea how the unrequest actually works. I'm under the impression that it works per-node and not per-reply, i.e., "The node who sent this response is evil! Punish it!" But how that node is identified I do not know. In particular, I think my evil node could attribute the evil search results to an arbitrary node. Maybe it's per-reference after all--"You shouldn't ever reply to searches about 'democracy' again, because you really fucked up this time!" But somehow this feels wrong... -- "...it must be held that third-party electronic monitoring, subject only to the self-restraint of law enforcement officials, has no place in our society..." Mark Roberts | mjr at statesmean.com _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
