* Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2007-05-24 21:38:16]:
> On Thursday 24 May 2007 21:05, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2007-05-24 20:31:37]: > > > That's sensible, but don't we do it already? > > > > No, we were waiting for 5 mins or so before doing the first detection. > > Not if we have no peers iirc. Well, it wasn't working for me... now it works. > > > > > IMHO the range of circumstances in which we'd want to run UP&P is > > > considerably wider than the range of circumstances in which we'd want to > > > run STUN: UP&P can quite happily run on every startup (if the user has > > > indicated the LAN is safe). > > > > I don't see any valid reason to prioritize up&p over stun. > > Because UP&P does not make us harvestable. It's a matter of choosing trustworthy stun servers... If the tape is at the ISP we are doomed anyway until we have got steganographic transport plugins... and even then, we might still be vulnerable. NextGen$ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20070524/244953bc/attachment.pgp>
