On Wednesday 06 August 2008 19:03, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2008-08-02 20:55:28]: > > > On Saturday 02 August 2008 08:10, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2008-08-02 01:48:29]: > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > Sure, but if it wasn't connected previously it would be -1 which is > > > invalid... > > > > > > Anyway, what do we want to do here? What about disconnecting from the > > > peer altogether? > > > > > forceDisconnect(false) and tell the user. No? > > What's the point of telling the user?
In the case of opennet, I suppose there isn't much point. > > Disconnection has been implemented in r21643 We should however log an obvious ERROR; it's possible that race conditions might lead to false positives. -------------- 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/20080807/8287799a/attachment.pgp>
