On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 09:05:47AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Even this doesn't completely solve the problem, since we must assume that
> an attacker will be able to monitor network traffic, and could easily
> notice that no corresponding message left the node after our reply arrived
> (with or without the simulated delay).
>
> Of course, I also don't like the idea that we will artificially be making
> Freenet slower to respond to requests than it already is.
>
> Ian.
Re my last comment: That will solve slowness for caching.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020208/fbd203eb/attachment.pgp>
