On Friday 01 August 2008 20:40, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2008-08-01 19:31:35]:
>
> > On Tuesday 22 July 2008 17:52, nextgens at freenetproject.org wrote:
> > > Author: nextgens
> > > Date: 2008-07-22 16:52:25 +0000 (Tue, 22 Jul 2008)
> > > New Revision: 21320
> > >
> > > Modified:
> > > trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/NodeDispatcher.java
> > > Log:
> > > Implement the FOAF-attack-mitigation hack
> >
> > IMHO we should accept the new location but ignore the FOAF locations, no?
> > >
>
> It can't happen from a genuine node; imho it makes sense to prune that
> node out of routing altogether (and that's what happens as a side effect
> of not accepting any location from it).
>
No, we'd keep the previous loc, wouldn't we?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080802/57a50081/attachment.pgp>
