In message <5.1.0.14.2.20020916100556.02e01620 at mail.dada.it>, Marco A. Calamari <marcoc1 at dada.it> writes >At 13.36 13/09/02 -0500, you wrote: >>> > From a normal user point of view, this fact transform >>> > a read/write media in a readonly media; something that >>> > the RIAA and other organization from the Dark Side >>> > can just dream of. >>> > >>> However, you were never able to insert a *site* by fproxy. This would be >>> a useful feature, no? :) >> >>The thing is that fproxy could NEVER actually insert whole sites into >>Freenet, and because site insertion is necessary to actually >>effectively publish content on Freenet, it is practically useless to >>keep the insertion feature in fproxy. > >In fact there is a major problem here, a non-technical one. > >Publish a freesite is the major way to disseminate info on freenet, > but is not the only way to use freenet. > >People tend to use things in way that maybe are out of > imagination; don't kill them just dropping features > that are established is, in my opinion, a better > way to "manage" freenet users. > >Or at leat the non-tecnical ones, that are many more that > maybe most developer think. > >Now (sorry) , another problem that is similar, in some aspect, > to the previous; a feature no longer avalaible to user. > >The use of the form accessible throught http://hostname.domain.tld:8890 > when a user try to connect to the 8888 is impossible TTBOMK when > tunneled via SSL; the Request button always send to 127.0.0.1, > and this is hard-coded in the servlet. > >For this reason it is *impossible* to have public secure gateway > to Freenet, that was an activity I and my group were doing. > >I read somethig on this subject on the dev list, but were unable > to find a suggestion to solve this. > >It's possible to ask for a suggestion to solve this problem, or > for another change in the servlet ? >
(Part message removed for clarity) When I complained about fproxy apparently having to compete for bandwidth with the node port (and I don't *know* that this is the cause of slow response from other machines compared with localhost, just suspect it) I was advised to use squid or a similar proxy - sounds as if it would solve your problem too. -- Roger Hayter _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
