Since I have never worked on it, it has never really bothered me, but it seems to me that the filter is a lot of wasted effort. I mean, you are doing something in a place where it is extremely difficult and unsafe (the proxy) rather than in a place where it could be both easy, safe, and more use friendly (the browser).
We all agree that we cannot ask most all users to install browser plugins, because maintaining such for X browsers on Y platforms is not realistic. But most users probably don't give a hoot about complicated attacks against their anonymity - wouldn't be easier to just make a plugin for mozilla, and referr the small minority that do care (and who are mostly computer litterate) to that? On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 12:09:39PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > I implemented it. It is absolutely necessary that the user > know we can't possibly protect their anonymity if they use a > browser that doesn't respect HTTP mime types. The other point > - well... maybe we should do a release. It will have several > really major outstanding issues: the datastore corruption bug > being the main one, and I'm very suspicious of the anonymity > filter, which needs to be rewritten as an allow-good-content > rather than kill-bad-content filter (this is all about > blocking HTML that might make your browser run scripts or > contact the external internet, both of which would ruin your > anonymity). So... we can't do a 0.5, but 0.4.5 might make sense. -- Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
