Dave Hooper schrieb:
>
> > I am currently checking in fixes into CVS. I will announce when they are
> > ready
>
> 'Kay, done it.
New try,
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/freenet/Freenet_setup0.3.9.1-2.exe
contains the latest bugfixes of Dave and uses the Java configurator.
David McNab, coul
"Mr.Bad" schrieb:
>
> > "DM" == David McNab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> DM> At present, there is no version of Freenet available for
> DM> download from the Freenet site which will work.
>
> What happened to the one we had before?
>
> And why the hell are we doing so many inter
> Really? It handles unicode scripts, or does it just block all HTTP access
from
> freenet pages? The latter could still lead to anonymity loss if javascript
can
> insert into freenet via POST on the portal page.
For this reason, the fwproxy is not supporting POST within Freenet.
Any javascript PO
ould
correspond to an "https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010530/575b0b43/attachment.html>
> > * The option to set the baseline time to a chosen or random hour, so as
to
> > avoid any risk of 'midnight GMT traffic jams'
> Just insert it a few hours in advance and change the date to tomorrow.
It's what
> everyone does.
I like that :)
Thanks
I'll put that in when I implement the scheduli
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:06:20PM -0500, Timm Murray wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wednesday 30 May 2001 06:21, toad said:
> > The attached file (recently posted to bugtraq by "eDvice Security Services"
> > as an exploit to another filter proxy) is picked
> > up
> I just put together the new installer fresh from CVS. It is at
> http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/freenet/Freenet_setup0.3.9.1-2.exe
Test report - Freenet Winstaller 0.3.9.1-2
Summary: FAILED
Conclusion: This installer is completely unusable, failing on both Win98SE
and Win2k
System spec:
W
Test report - Freenet Winstaller 0.3.9.1-1
Summary: FAIL
Conclusion: Installer is unfit for distribution
-
System spec:
Windows 98SE, virgin installation from ghosted image
Sun JRE 1.3
Result: Success
-
System spec:
Windows 2000 Profess
> 5) Flaunch.ini:
>
> [Freenet Launcher]
> # Javaexec should point to your Java Runtime binary (jview.exe or
java.exe)
> javaexec=c:\Program Files\JavaSoft\JRE\1.3\bin\java.exe
> javaw=c:\Program Files\JavaSoft\JRE\1.3\bin\javaw.exe
>
> # Commands to be executed by Java
> frequest=Freenet.client.R
> "DM" == David McNab writes:
DM> At present, there is no version of Freenet available for
DM> download from the Freenet site which will work.
What happened to the one we had before?
And why the hell are we doing so many interim Windows installers?
~Mr. Bad
--
~
> "DM" == David McNab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DM> At present, there is no version of Freenet available for
DM> download from the Freenet site which will work.
What happened to the one we had before?
And why the hell are we doing so many interim Windows installers?
~Mr. Bad
--
> I am currently checking in fixes into CVS. I will announce when they are
> ready
'Kay, done it.
New freenet.exe is in CVSROOT/Contrib/wininstall/Freenet as you'd expect.
All source in the obvious place too (../wininstall/Sources/freenet.exe)
To the best of my knowledge, this update fixes al
At present, there is no version of Freenet available for download from the
Freenet site which will work.
This means that Freenet is as good as broken on Windows.
I'd suggest as a matter of urgency that someone with release privileges
build up a 0.3.8 winstaller with the 0.3.9.1 Jar file, and put
Hi all,
you can subscribe to the cvs change notification lists now. It is not
spam proof or moderated yet as it has to allow posts from
@users.sourgeforge.net mails. Does anybody can help me with a matching
regex expression which is true if the header does *not* end with
@users.sourceforge.net ?
Y
Dang, you know, I wish I had email access at my desk at work, I'd be able to
do my fixes in a more timely fashion.
The following bugs have very recently come to light, thanks to the very
great work of David McNab and Reudiger Kapitza and Zhang Delong on the
support mailing list:
1.Freenet do
Again, let me be simple and blunt. The masses can't hack alphabet soup
(should change within a few years if the Doonesbury cartoon holds any
truth).
I've taken a stand because I value the concept of Freenet - it's the most
desperately under-installed thing on the Internet. Freenet still has a
repu
From: "Ian Clarke"
OK - here's an option...
How about I create a separate build of FreeWeb which excludes all the
fwproxy/DNS/KSK functionality, and publish it under a different name, such
as 'WinSite', or 'Winsert'.?
David
___
Devl mailing list
From: "Ian Clarke"
>If this is true, then we should consider either:
>a) Contacting the authors of these systems to point out the bug, or
Yeah right.
Shareware software authors just *love* lurching to their keyboards and
rushing to implement features upon request.
My narc-iness is not directed a
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:06:20PM -0500, Timm Murray wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wednesday 30 May 2001 06:21, toad said:
> > The attached file (recently posted to bugtraq by "eDvice Security Services"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as an exploit to another filter pro
Hi,
See if this is in the right direction:
An important part of the internet is email as you know.
How can email take advantage of freenet? I think the
in-freenet key index machanism is a great start.
(This occurs to me because we cannot send email to
friends in China - if the message contains
> BUT, the MSK at SSK@... is *not* spoofable. KSK at blah is spoofable. FreeWeb
does not
> allow MSK at SSK@... - it looks up the KSK every time to avoid nasty long
(secure)
> URLs. Freenet is secure if you use MSK at SSK@
Again... ... FreeWeb publishes and maintains totally secure sites in
the st
From: "thelema"
>> > And another thing - there is a total horde of excellent tools, such as
web
>> > accelerators, website downloaders etc, many of which choke on their own
>> > vomit when fed the 'politically correct' freenet URLs - when they see
>> > 'http://127.0.0.1/MSK%40SSK%40alphabet-soup/
From: "Ian Clarke"
Have a closer look at FreeWeb.
It may not have been noticed that it's easy to use FreeWeb in a way which
complies completely with the existing standards - this was true even in the
first prototype.
As it stands (and always has done), FreeWeb performs the creation and
updati
>From ian at hawk.freenetproject.org (Ian Clarke)
>On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:07:59PM -0400, Benjamin Coates wrote:
>> How is freenet not a protocol with similar standing to HTTP and FTP? I
would
>> say that's exactly what it is...
>
>Because it *USES* HTTP for communcation with the local node, i
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 11:46:59PM +1200, David McNab wrote:
> > Really? It handles unicode scripts, or does it just block all HTTP access
> from
> > freenet pages? The latter could still lead to anonymity loss if javascript
> can
> > insert into freenet via POST on the portal page.
>
> For this r
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 11:27:25PM +1200, David McNab wrote:
> Hate to say this, but the FWproxy withing Freeweb is immune to this problem
> :)
Really? It handles unicode scripts, or does it just block all HTTP access from
freenet pages? The latter could still lead to anonymity loss if javascript c
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Hooper [mailto:no-brain at mindless.com]
> True, the application has a different 'view'
> onto the freenet space, but so what? As a glib
> example, FTP clients generally sweeten the protocol
> by allowing you to type "rename" instead of using
> raw RNF
this stuff? (finding which chars could
correspond to an "https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010530/1e6f50d5/attachment.html>
I just put together the new installer fresh from CVS. It is at
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/freenet/Freenet_setup0.3.9.1-2.exe
It is not public on Sourceforge.net and should not be announced until
others are happy with it (end of this week or so). Dave, I get "Freenet
is having problems" fee
>From ian at hawk.freenetproject.org (Ian Clarke)
>> >From previous discussions on lists and chat, I notice that Freenet
>> developers aren't sharing your staunch objection against freenet: URI
>> handlers, on the grounds that some weird browsers may not handle them.
>
>In this project we choose t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 06:27, David McNab said:
> Hate to say this, but the FWproxy withing Freeweb is immune to this problem
While I don't think FreeWeb itself is that great, I do think you got the
FWproxy done the Right Way.
- --
Timm Murray
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 06:21, toad said:
> The attached file (recently posted to bugtraq by "eDvice Security Services"
> as an exploit to another filter proxy) is picked
> up by fproxy's filter, but only the meta tag that sets the character set.
> T
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 02:02:27PM +1200, David McNab wrote:
> From: "Ian Clarke"
>
>
>
> Have a closer look at FreeWeb.
>
> It may not have been noticed that it's easy to use FreeWeb in a way which
> complies completely with the existing standards - this was true even in the
> first prototype
part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010530/5f4185b0/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:19:25PM -0400, Benjamin Coates wrote:
> >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Clarke)
> >On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:07:59PM -0400, Benjamin Coates wrote:
> >> How is freenet not a protocol with similar standing to HTTP and FTP? I
> would
> >> say that's exactly what it is...
>
Hi,
See if this is in the right direction:
An important part of the internet is email as you know.
How can email take advantage of freenet? I think the
in-freenet key index machanism is a great start.
(This occurs to me because we cannot send email to
friends in China - if the message contains
--
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 02:09:59PM +1200, David McNab wrote:
>> > BUT, the MSK at SSK@... is *not* spoofable. KSK at blah is spoofable.
>> > FreeWeb
>> > allow MSK at SSK@... - it looks up the KSK every time to avoid nasty long
>> > URLs. Freenet is secure if you use MSK at SSK@
From: "Ian Clarke"
>> >Why not just let people connect straight to
>> >FProxy as nature intended
>> Because with FreeWeb running as a true http proxy, it takes control of
all
>> the browser's access to the internet.
>> This allows for a far more accurate anonymity filter. Try it and see.
>
>It do
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Clarke)
>On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:07:59PM -0400, Benjamin Coates wrote:
>> How is freenet not a protocol with similar standing to HTTP and FTP? I
would
>> say that's exactly what it is...
>
>Because it *USES* HTTP for communcation with the local node, it is not a
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 06:21, toad said:
> The attached file (recently posted to bugtraq by "eDvice Security Services"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as an exploit to another filter proxy) is picked
> up by fproxy's filter, but only the meta tag that sets th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 30 May 2001 06:27, David McNab said:
> Hate to say this, but the FWproxy withing Freeweb is immune to this problem
While I don't think FreeWeb itself is that great, I do think you got the
FWproxy done the Right Way.
- --
Timm Murray
e: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010530/f8cb21fd/attachment.pgp>
lable
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010530/971745b4/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:07:59PM -0400, Benjamin Coates wrote:
> How is freenet not a protocol with similar standing to HTTP and FTP? I would
> say that's exactly what it is...
Because it *USES* HTTP for communcation with the local node, it is not a
replacement for HTTP, and there is no need
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 05:47:52PM +0200, Sebastian Sp?th wrote:
> Hi all,
> you can subscribe to the cvs change notification lists now. It is not
> spam proof or moderated yet as it has to allow posts from
> @users.sourgeforge.net mails. Does anybody can help me with a matching
> regex expression
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Clarke)
>> >From previous discussions on lists and chat, I notice that Freenet
>> developers aren't sharing your staunch objection against freenet: URI
>> handlers, on the grounds that some weird browsers may not handle them.
>
>In this project we choose the correct s
David wrote:
> All this aside, I still like the idea of a '.free' underground
> domain, using
> the familiar web paradigm.
> It's tempting to strip all that functionality out of FreeWeb, to appease
> Ian's concerns, and publish the FwProxy as a completely separate program,
> not associated with Fre
Hi all,
you can subscribe to the cvs change notification lists now. It is not
spam proof or moderated yet as it has to allow posts from
@users.sourgeforge.net mails. Does anybody can help me with a matching
regex expression which is true if the header does *not* end with
@users.sourceforge.net ?
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 11:46:59PM +1200, David McNab wrote:
> > Really? It handles unicode scripts, or does it just block all HTTP access
> from
> > freenet pages? The latter could still lead to anonymity loss if javascript
> can
> > insert into freenet via POST on the portal page.
>
> For this
> Really? It handles unicode scripts, or does it just block all HTTP access
from
> freenet pages? The latter could still lead to anonymity loss if javascript
can
> insert into freenet via POST on the portal page.
For this reason, the fwproxy is not supporting POST within Freenet.
Any javascript P
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 11:27:25PM +1200, David McNab wrote:
> Hate to say this, but the FWproxy withing Freeweb is immune to this problem
> :)
Really? It handles unicode scripts, or does it just block all HTTP access from
freenet pages? The latter could still lead to anonymity loss if javascript
Hate to say this, but the FWproxy withing Freeweb
is immune to this problem
:)
- Original Message -
From:
toad
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 23:21
Subject: [freenet-devl] Content filter vs
unicode
The attached file (recently posted to bugtraq
> > * The option to set the baseline time to a chosen or random hour, so as
to
> > avoid any risk of 'midnight GMT traffic jams'
> Just insert it a few hours in advance and change the date to tomorrow.
It's what
> everyone does.
I like that :)
Thanks
I'll put that in when I implement the schedul
> I just put together the new installer fresh from CVS. It is at
> http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/freenet/Freenet_setup0.3.9.1-2.exe
Test report - Freenet Winstaller 0.3.9.1-2
Summary: FAILED
Conclusion: This installer is completely unusable, failing on both Win98SE
and Win2k
System spec:
Test report - Freenet Winstaller 0.3.9.1-1
Summary: FAIL
Conclusion: Installer is unfit for distribution
-
System spec:
Windows 98SE, virgin installation from ghosted image
Sun JRE 1.3
Result: Success
-
System spec:
Windows 2000 Profes
The attached file (recently posted to bugtraq by "eDvice Security Services"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as an exploit to another filter proxy) is picked up by
fproxy's filter, but only the meta tag that sets the character set. This is used
by, for example, the Freenet China News sites, though they use ch
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 02:02:27PM +1200, David McNab wrote:
> From: "Ian Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
> Have a closer look at FreeWeb.
>
> It may not have been noticed that it's easy to use FreeWeb in a way which
> complies completely with the existing standards - this was true even in t
I just put together the new installer fresh from CVS. It is at
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/freenet/Freenet_setup0.3.9.1-2.exe
It is not public on Sourceforge.net and should not be announced until
others are happy with it (end of this week or so). Dave, I get "Freenet
is having problems" fe
--
> On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 02:09:59PM +1200, David McNab wrote:
>> > BUT, the MSK@SSK@... is *not* spoofable. KSK@blah is spoofable. FreeWeb
>> > allow MSK@SSK@... - it looks up the KSK every time to avoid nasty long
>> > URLs. Freenet is secure if you use MSK@SSK@
>>
>> Again... .
On Wed, 30 May 2001, David McNab wrote:
>
> From: "Chris Anderson"
> > it is cool to think of .free as a censorship free domain... it's power is
> > in it's simplicity (but if it exists at all, it should use ssks).
>
> The first prototype of FreeWeb did just that. However, it depends on
> one o
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 08:04:38PM -0400, eigenman wrote:
> > > Well duh.
> > > freeweb is to freenet as WWW is to HTTP!
> > > Its a naming process.
> > >
> >
> > WWW is to HTTP? Huh?
>
> An abstract naming simplification. Which stops at a point where most
> average people understand how to use i
What's stopping David from doing this anyway, with or without the consent of
The Freenet Corporation? Either people will use it or they won't use it.
Either way it doesn't detract from the usefulness of Freenet. The only
problem I can (really) see is that it could lead to a widespread
misconcepti
62 matches
Mail list logo
