Hay, Hell?, Szervusz(tok)!
I'm publikacio HERBALIFE-< ID:F7003203> assistance
pack HUF 30200,-Ft, - cirka ~ 160$
http://www.myvideotalk.net/
Thank Yu very much!
//:Add tov?bb & barataid h?l?sak lesznek ?rte!://
-- Eredeti ?zenet --
Felad?: devl-request at freenetproject.org
C?mzett: devl at freenetproject.org
M?solat:
Elk?ldve: 2006.08.1814:00
T?ma: Devl Digest, Vol 11, Issue 33Send Devl mailing list submissions todevl at
freenetproject.orgTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
visithttp://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devlor, via email,
send a message with subject or body 'help' todevl-request at freenetproject
.orgYou can reach the person managing the list atdevl-owner at
freenetproject.orgWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
specificthan "Re: Contents of Devl digest..."Today's Topics:1. Re: "Insert
Files" - why? (David 'Bombe' Roden)2. Re: Darknet and opennet: semi-separate
networks?(Matthew Toseland)3. Re: Darknet and opennet: semi-separate
networks?(Matthew Toseland)4. Re: "Insert Files" - why? (Matthew Toseland)5.
Re: Darknet and opennet: semi-separate networks? (Ian Clarke)6. Re: "Insert
Files" - why?
(Jano)----------------------------------------------------------------------Message:
1Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:35:21 +0200From: David 'Bombe' Roden <">droden
at gmail.com>Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] "Insert Files" - why?To: devl at
freenetproject.orgMessage-ID: <">200608172235.22001.droden at
gmail.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"On Thursday 17
August 2006 22:06, Ian Clarke wrote:> Hmm, that is kind of a specialist
need, does it really have to have> such prominence on the FProxy page? Could
it be a plugin instead?As nextgens suggested I'll remove the link from the
navigation bar and include a link on the queue page.> I think $HOME might be
better.Okay.> Ian.David-------------- next part --------------A non-text
attachment was scrubbed...Name: not availableType:
application/pgp-signatureSize: 191 bytesDesc: not availableUrl :
http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/7c3958b7/attachment.pgp------------------------------Message:
2Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:10:09 +0100From: Matthew Toseland <">toad at
amphibian.dyndns.org>Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Darknet and opennet:
semi-separatenetworks?To: Discussion of development issues <">devl at
freenetproject.org>Message-ID: <">20060817211009.GA19497 at
amphibian.dyndns.org>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"On Thu, Aug
17, 2006 at 10:16:26AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:> On 17 Aug 2006, at 09:58,
Matthew Toseland wrote:> >On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:37:02AM -0700, Ian
Clarke wrote:> >>I don't believe that the darknet and opennet will be
weakly connected> >>as you suggest, but neither of us can no for sure
until we see it.> >> >We can know for near certain that darknets
operating in hostile> >environments will be weakly connected to the
opennet, and probably to> >other darknets too, for the simple reason that
they CANNOT use > >opennet.> > No, but they can be connected to
peers outside the hostile > environment that can be promiscuous.Sure, but
the hope is that there will be several very large (thousandsof nodes)
chinese/iranian/etc darknets, which would have to haverelatively few "uplink"
nodes, not just hundreds of ten node ones.> > Ian.-- Matthew J Toseland -
toad at amphibian.dyndns.orgFreenet Project Official Codemonkey -
http://freenetproject.org/ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says
so.-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was
scrubbed...Name: not availableType: application/pgp-signatureSize: 189
bytesDesc: Digital signatureUrl :
http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/e31164bc/attachment.pgp------------------------------Message:
3Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:15:20 +0100From: Matthew Toseland <">toad at
amphibian.dyndns.org>Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Darknet and opennet:
semi-separatenetworks?To: Discussion of development issues <">devl at
freenetproject.org>Message-ID: <">20060817211520.GB19497 at
amphibian.dyndns.org>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"On Thu, Aug
17, 2006 at 12:16:34PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:> > On 17 Aug 2006, at
10:42, Evan Daniel wrote:> >On 8/17/06, Ian Clarke <">ian at
revver.com> wrote:> >>On 17 Aug 2006, at 09:58, Matthew Toseland
wrote:> >>> >>On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:37:02AM -0700, Ian
Clarke wrote:> >>> >>I don't believe that the darknet and
opennet will be weakly connected> >>as you suggest, but neither of us
can no for sure until we see it.> >>> >>We can know for near
certain that darknets operating in hostile> >>environments will be
weakly connected to the opennet, and probably to> >>other darknets
too, for the simple reason that they CANNOT use > >>opennet.>
>>> >>No, but they can be connected to peers outside the hostile
> >>environment that can be promiscuous.> >> >Can they? If
the outside peer is promiscuous, then it can be> >harvested (with some
greater amount of effort than for 0.5, right?).> >So can't a hostile
gov't harvest external promiscuous nodes and block> >all traffic to /
from them? Then you'd need a user behind the> >firewall to connect to a
darknet-only node outside the firewall, which> >would then connect to
promiscuous nodes via darknet connections.> > Perhaps, in which case the
solution is for someone inside the > firewall to connect to a darknet node
outside the firewall, they can > then connect to opennet nodes. In this case
the user in the hostile > regime is still just 2 hops from the opennet.There
is a limited supply of friendly westerners, and there is also alimited
intersection of content between the two networks. If the networkis to work well
for the chinese then it will have to scale *internally*,so that people can add
their friends without rapidly slowing down theirown access. What you suggest is
analogous to me running a proxy for afew of my chinese friends; if they connect
their friends to that proxy,and their friends connect their friends, pretty
soon it is intolerablyslow. You need a large network with lots of internal
nodes connected toeach other, and relatively few external connections.> >
>That might be a problem... And it's definitely a way in which having>
>an open-net hurts the darknet (though I do agree that we have a>
>defacto open-net right now).> > I think this final parenthesized
point is the key, we don't have a > darknet right now, we have a very very
flawed opennet. This > situation will persist until we provide a decent
opennet solution.True, we have a flawed opennet with some darknet links.>
> Ian.-- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.orgFreenet Project
Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible
. Our Boss says so.-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment
was scrubbed...Name: not availableType: application/pgp-signatureSize: 189
bytesDesc: Digital signatureUrl :
http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/9d972b5e/attachment.pgp------------------------------Message:
4Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:16:39 +0100From: Matthew Toseland <">toad at
amphibian.dyndns.org>Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] "Insert Files" - why?To:
Discussion of development issues <">devl at
freenetproject.org>Message-ID: <">20060817211639.GC19497 at
amphibian.dyndns.org>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"On Thu, Aug
17, 2006 at 12:05:22PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:> I don't really understand
why we have replicated the "Browse File" > functionality built into all
browsers in the new "Insert Files" > section of FProxy? A case of "Not
Invented Here"?Temporary space. If we force the browser to upload it directly,
it isstored in many more places than if we tell the node where the file is
-which no browser will do; they must send the filename, not the fullpath.--
Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.orgFreenet Project Official
Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss
says so.-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was
scrubbed...Name: not availableType: application/pgp-signatureSize: 189
bytesDesc: Digital signatureUrl :
http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/e99de63b/attachment.pgp------------------------------Message:
5Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:35:24 -0700From: Ian Clarke <">ian at
locut.us>Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Darknet and opennet:
semi-separatenetworks?To: Discussion of development issues <">devl at
freenetproject.org>Cc: Oskar Sandberg <">ossa at
math.chalmers.se>Message-ID: <">45F4C14A-ED56-46ED-AC85-33EB3C24BD1F at
locut.us>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes;
format=flowed-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA1(copying Oskar - I
think you will want to read this)On 17 Aug 2006, at 14:15, Matthew Toseland
wrote:> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:16:34PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:>>
Perhaps, in which case the solution is for someone inside the>> firewall
to connect to a darknet node outside the firewall, they can>> then
connect to opennet nodes. In this case the user in the hostile>> regime
is still just 2 hops from the opennet.>> There is a limited supply of
friendly westerners, and there is also a> limited intersection of content
between the two networks. If the > network> is to work well for the
chinese then it will have to scale > *internally*,> so that people can
add their friends without rapidly slowing down > their> own access. What
you suggest is analogous to me running a proxy for a> few of my chinese
friends; if they connect their friends to that > proxy,> and their
friends connect their friends, pretty soon it is intolerably> slow. You need
a large network with lots of internal nodes > connected to> each other,
and relatively few external connections.I agree that if we end up in a
situation where we have large parts of the network only connected to each other
through a very small number of links that this will be problematic as those
links will quickly be overloaded. I'm not yet convinced that this situation
will occur, but I agree that it is a possibility.I think the fundamental reason
for this problem is the migration towards a more simplistic notion of node
specialization in 0.7. The more flexible approach of 0.5 where nodes can have
more than one specialization, and varying degrees of specialization in response
to demand, I believe, would be able to deal with this situation. 0.7's simpler
approach may not.I don't think the solution is to have some different routing
behavior depending on whether it is a darknet or an opennet node, because this
doesn't solve the problem that the information you want is still very likely to
be outside your isolated corner of Freenet. Perhaps if nodes maintained two
specializations, one for "local darknet" and another for "global opennet", that
could solve the problem, but that strikes me as being rather ugly.osFor now I
suggest that we wait and see, if we do start to see a network topology that
essentially consists of multiple small world networks that are poorly connected
to each-other, then we may need to consider moving back to something closer to
the 0.5 approach to node specialization.Ian.-----BEGIN PGP
SIGNATURE-----Version: GnuPG v1.4.5
(Darwin)iD8DBQFE5OEcQtgxRWSmsqwRAq04AJ9eJopVTpgKg8FofnukjGIow5PzKQCdGTb1ePKFPPg9tWcqHhg3LYT2Ncg==roc7-----END
PGP SIGNATURE-----------------------------------Message: 6Date: Fri, 18 Aug
2006 00:52:29 +0200From: Jano <">alejandro at mosteo.com>Subject:
[freenet-dev] Re: "Insert Files" - why?To: devl at
freenetproject.orgMessage-ID: 1 at sea.gmane.org>Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-asciiIan Clarke wrote:> > On 17 Aug 2006, at 12:49, David
'Bombe' Roden wrote:> >> On Thursday 17 August 2006 21:05, Ian Clarke
wrote:>>>>> I don't really understand why we have replicated the
"Browse File">>> functionality built into all browsers in the new
"Insert Files">>> section of FProxy? A case of "Not Invented
Here"?>>>> In the future I intend to run the node on a different
computer so>> the "Insert Files" box is essentially completely useless if
the file I>> want to insert is on the machine running the node.> >
Hmm, that is kind of a specialist need, does it really have to have> such
prominence on the FProxy page? Could it be a plugin instead?I don't think is
that specialist need. I'm doing it, for example, and thereason is quite clear:
having a box 24/7 is not easy, so once you have oneyou want to have your node
here, and use it via ssh tunneling fromeverywhere (this in fact works fantastic
with
frost/thaw/browsing).------------------------------_______________________________________________Devl
mailing listDevl at
freenetproject.orghttp://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devlEnd
of Devl Digest, Vol 11, Issue 33************************************
--------------------------Hirdet?s-----------------------------
SZERETNE EGY KIV?L? EMAIL C?MET?!
Ne vesz?dj?n m?s free szolg?ltat?kkal!
V?lassza a min?s?get ?s a megbizhat?s?got!
Klikk ide: http://www.vipmail.hu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060819/add580da/attachment.html>
