On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 01:10:25PM -0800, Dale Babiy wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 08:53:25PM -0500, news wrote:
> >
> > And of course browsers *could* implement this functionality themselves.
>
> It seems risky to make the assumption that all browser code should be
> trusted esp. given that we have no ability to audit the code. A piece of
> firewalling code would seem more appropiate under the circumstances,
> unfortunatly it would be highly platform dependant. I think delegating
> the responsibility for this to Fproxy makes the most sense in the long
> run.
I agree in the short run, but in the long run, I think browsers should
evolve to support freenet: the same way they have evolved to support
things like HTTP, FTP, proxies, gopher, wais, HTML, etc.
In the short term, perhaps a useful tool would be to have a proxy
running on localhost that was switchable by the user (think system
tray icon for winbloze) into freenet or non-freenet mode. In freenet
mode it blocks all non-freenet protocols, and otherwise it passes
through directly to the 'net or the user's normal web proxy.
--
// Tavin Cole
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
