For some reason the below wasn't sent to the cvs list. This is a manual
reconstruction based on the SVN diff.
SORRY NEXTGENS!!
Author: nextgens
Date: 2008-08-14 13:33:41 + (Thu, 14 Aug 2008)
New Revision: 21838
Modified:
branches/db4o/freenet/src/freenet/client/async/ClientRequestSchedu
A - B - C - D - E - [ A ... ]
A 0.0
B 0.2
C 0.4
D 0.6
E 0.8
Now connect F to D.
F initially has value 0.1 (randomly chosen).
F attempts a swap. It connects to B and they decide whether to swap.
B's side: I am 0.2, neighbours 0.0 and 0.2, distance product is 0.04.
If I swap, my distance product
A - B - C - D - E - [ A ... ]
A 0.0
B 0.2
C 0.4
D 0.6
E 0.8
Now connect F to D.
F initially has value 0.1 (randomly chosen).
F attempts a swap. It connects to B and they decide whether to swap.
B's side: I am 0.2, neighbours 0.0 and 0.2, distance product is 0.04.
If I swap, my distance product
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 06:51:55PM -0500, Juiceman wrote:
> On 12/13/06, toad wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:14:39PM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> > > toad wrote:
> > > > This is why the vast majority of swap attempts fail in
> > > > &quo
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 08:35:56PM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> toad wrote:
> > Most of the time they are trying to send swaps out, which get rejected
> > because the node they reach is already locked, because it itself is
> > sending a swap out. Executing swaps doesn&#x
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 06:51:55PM -0500, Juiceman wrote:
> On 12/13/06, toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:14:39PM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> > > toad wrote:
> > > > This is why the vast majority of swap attempts fail in
> &g
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 08:35:56PM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> toad wrote:
> > Most of the time they are trying to send swaps out, which get rejected
> > because the node they reach is already locked, because it itself is
> > sending a swap out. Executing swaps doesn&#x
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:14:39PM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> toad wrote:
> > This is why the vast majority of swap attempts fail in
> > "swapsRejectedAlreadyLocked" on the stats page:
>
> If most nodes are locked at any given time, doesn't that mean node
There are some interesting new APIs in java 1.6...
Are the java 1.6 disk space APIs (File.getFreeSpace, File.getTotalSpace,
combined with the pre-existing File.listRoots) of any use in making the
node more user friendly? What could we do with them?
- storeSize=10% [ of available disk space ]
-- m
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:14:39PM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> toad wrote:
> > This is why the vast majority of swap attempts fail in
> > "swapsRejectedAlreadyLocked" on the stats page:
>
> If most nodes are locked at any given time, doesn't that mean node
There are some interesting new APIs in java 1.6...
Are the java 1.6 disk space APIs (File.getFreeSpace, File.getTotalSpace,
combined with the pre-existing File.listRoots) of any use in making the
node more user friendly? What could we do with them?
- storeSize=10% [ of available disk space ]
-- m
At the moment, our swapping implementation works like this:
Every ~ 2 seconds, the node checks whether it is locked. If not, it
sends out a swap request. Swap requests are routed randomly for 6 hops.
If the destination is locked, that's the end of the request. If not, the
destination replies, the
At the moment, our swapping implementation works like this:
Every ~ 2 seconds, the node checks whether it is locked. If not, it
sends out a swap request. Swap requests are routed randomly for 6 hops.
If the destination is locked, that's the end of the request. If not, the
destination replies, the
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 10:15:43AM +0100, freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> >> - Fixed maximum packet size, at the moment this is 1400-28 (28 being
> >> UDP headers).
> >> - The above, but can be overridden by nodes who know their local MTU;
> >> the overridden maximum sizes would be exchanged on
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 10:15:43AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> - Fixed maximum packet size, at the moment this is 1400-28 (28 being
> >> UDP headers).
> >> - The above, but can be overridden by nodes who know their local MTU;
> >> the overridden maximum sizes would be exchanged on conn
Freenet 0.7 build 1007 is now available. Please upgrade! If the
node updater doesn't work, please tell me. Some of the changes in 1007:
- 1007 will be mandatory on December 25, due to various recent changes.
- Freenet now assumes an MTU of 1400. This is unfortunate, but
apparently at least one ma
Does anyone have any concrete ideas on how to do PMTU in Freenet?
So far, these seem to be the options:
- Fixed maximum packet size, at the moment this is 1400-28 (28 being
UDP headers).
- The above, but can be overridden by nodes who know their local MTU;
the overridden maximum sizes would b
Freenet 0.7 build 1007 is now available. Please upgrade! If the
node updater doesn't work, please tell me. Some of the changes in 1007:
- 1007 will be mandatory on December 25, due to various recent changes.
- Freenet now assumes an MTU of 1400. This is unfortunate, but
apparently at least one ma
Does anyone have any concrete ideas on how to do PMTU in Freenet?
So far, these seem to be the options:
- Fixed maximum packet size, at the moment this is 1400-28 (28 being
UDP headers).
- The above, but can be overridden by nodes who know their local MTU;
the overridden maximum sizes would b
Why make a build mandatory before it's even been released? Please don't
do this in future!
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:33:08PM +, cvs at freenetproject.org wrote:
> Author: nextgens
> Date: 2006-12-05 17:38:39 + (Tue, 05 Dec 2006)
> New Revision: 11237
>
> Modified:
>trunk/freenet/src/
Why make a build mandatory before it's even been released? Please don't
do this in future!
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 06:33:08PM +, cvs@freenetproject.org wrote:
> Author: nextgens
> Date: 2006-12-05 17:38:39 + (Tue, 05 Dec 2006)
> New Revision: 11237
>
> Modified:
>trunk/freenet/src/fre
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 10:36:44AM +0100, Dennis Olsson wrote:
> Do we want to let freenet give non-standardized results?
Well, the proposal is to text2html only when talking to dangerous
browsers. For all other browsers the only transformation that will occur
is adding a newline at the beginning
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:59:36AM +, Dave Baker wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 December 2006 01:58, toad wrote:
> > It would be reasonably easy (a few hours' work) to support Internet
> > Explorer reasonably safely. (By recognizing it, and transforming
> > text/plain into
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 10:36:44AM +0100, Dennis Olsson wrote:
> Do we want to let freenet give non-standardized results?
Well, the proposal is to text2html only when talking to dangerous
browsers. For all other browsers the only transformation that will occur
is adding a newline at the beginning
On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 08:59:36AM +, Dave Baker wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 December 2006 01:58, toad wrote:
> > It would be reasonably easy (a few hours' work) to support Internet
> > Explorer reasonably safely. (By recognizing it, and transforming
> > text/plain into
It would be reasonably easy (a few hours' work) to support Internet
Explorer reasonably safely. (By recognizing it, and transforming
text/plain into 'ed and HTML-encoded HTML). Good idea or not?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type:
It would be reasonably easy (a few hours' work) to support Internet
Explorer reasonably safely. (By recognizing it, and transforming
text/plain into 'ed and HTML-encoded HTML). Good idea or not?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Devl mail
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:52:47AM +0100, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> * toad [2006-12-02 03:07:25]:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 10:13:17PM +, toad wrote:
> > > Firefox 2.0 includes an "RSS feed sniffer". What this means is that if a
> > >
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:52:47AM +0100, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote:
> * toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-02 03:07:25]:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 10:13:17PM +, toad wrote:
> > > Firefox 2.0 includes an "RSS feed sniffer". What this means i
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 10:13:17PM +, toad wrote:
> Firefox 2.0 includes an "RSS feed sniffer". What this means is that if a
> file looks like RSS, regardless of its content type (tests show this
> happening with text/plain and image/jpeg, but not text/html), it will be
&
Somebody with XP SP2 and IE6, please visit the below site, and tell me
if it redirects you to fbi.gov:
CHK at
qhg6NvKnWfG~mKm1akieQfc70pqWXvlyqyBsOnyUZr0,F65SIZDVMBjP9U1Rm1qXK~9Yb8nITW9NO3GdJw3orR8,AAEC--8/
Thanks.
[1] below suggests that it may not. If so, we can drop the warning about
IE not
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 10:13:17PM +, toad wrote:
> Firefox 2.0 includes an "RSS feed sniffer". What this means is that if a
> file looks like RSS, regardless of its content type (tests show this
> happening with text/plain and image/jpeg, but not text/html), it will be
&
Somebody with XP SP2 and IE6, please visit the below site, and tell me
if it redirects you to fbi.gov:
[EMAIL PROTECTED],F65SIZDVMBjP9U1Rm1qXK~9Yb8nITW9NO3GdJw3orR8,AAEC--8/
Thanks.
[1] below suggests that it may not. If so, we can drop the warning about
IE not honouring MIME types (for HTML) ..
Freenet 0.7 build 1005 is now available. Please upgrade. This build
fixes a potential security issue with Firefox 2.0 (also IE 7, but that
has other problems). Firefox will display as RSS anything which from the
first 512 bytes looks like RSS; therefore an attacker can bypass the
HTML filter using
Firefox 2.0 includes an "RSS feed sniffer". What this means is that if a
file looks like RSS, regardless of its content type (tests show this
happening with text/plain and image/jpeg, but not text/html), it will be
treated as RSS and either displayed (previewed?) internally or passed to
a third par
Please do not use Firefox 2.0 with Freenet, for the time being. A
problem with RSS feed auto-detection has been discovered. We will deal
with the problem in the near future, but for the time being, avoid using
Firefox 2.0 to access Freenet. Thank you.
A further mail will be sent to devl detailing
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:23:13PM +0100, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> * toad [2006-11-30 02:27:03]:
>
> > We discovered what the problem with my connection to sbc was. It was a
> > corporate NAT that rewrites the source port, but doesn't then reroute
> > p
Freenet 0.7 build 1005 is now available. Please upgrade. This build
fixes a potential security issue with Firefox 2.0 (also IE 7, but that
has other problems). Firefox will display as RSS anything which from the
first 512 bytes looks like RSS; therefore an attacker can bypass the
HTML filter using
Firefox 2.0 includes an "RSS feed sniffer". What this means is that if a
file looks like RSS, regardless of its content type (tests show this
happening with text/plain and image/jpeg, but not text/html), it will be
treated as RSS and either displayed (previewed?) internally or passed to
a third par
Please do not use Firefox 2.0 with Freenet, for the time being. A
problem with RSS feed auto-detection has been discovered. We will deal
with the problem in the near future, but for the time being, avoid using
Firefox 2.0 to access Freenet. Thank you.
A further mail will be sent to devl detailing
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:23:13PM +0100, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote:
> * toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-30 02:27:03]:
>
> > We discovered what the problem with my connection to sbc was. It was a
> > corporate NAT that rewrites the source port, but doesn'
We discovered what the problem with my connection to sbc was. It was a
corporate NAT that rewrites the source port, but doesn't then reroute
packets to the new port to the original port. I have introduced a new
peer parameter, ignoreSourcePort, which can be set on a specific peer
from the dropdown
Freenet 0.7 build 1004 is now available. This fixes two bugs in or
related to the content filter. These bugs could have been used by a
malicious freesite to compromize your anonymity. Please upgrade ASAP.
Thank you. Also thanks to the reporter of the bug (makomk).
-- next part -
We discovered what the problem with my connection to sbc was. It was a
corporate NAT that rewrites the source port, but doesn't then reroute
packets to the new port to the original port. I have introduced a new
peer parameter, ignoreSourcePort, which can be set on a specific peer
from the dropdown
- Forwarded message from toad at freenetproject.org -
Delivery-date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:24:15 +
To: cvs at freenetproject.org
From: t...@freenetproject.org
Subject: [freenet-cvs] r0 - trunk/freenet
List-Id: cvs.freenetproject.org
Author: toad
Date: 2006-11-29 15:24:09 + (Wed
Freenet 0.7 build 1004 is now available. This fixes two bugs in or
related to the content filter. These bugs could have been used by a
malicious freesite to compromize your anonymity. Please upgrade ASAP.
Thank you. Also thanks to the reporter of the bug (makomk).
signature.asc
Description: Digit
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Delivery-date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:24:15 +
To: cvs@freenetproject.org
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [freenet-cvs] r0 - trunk/freenet
List-Id: cvs.freenetproject.org
Author: toad
Date: 2006-11-29 15:24:09 + (Wed, 29 Nov 2006)
New
Freenet 0.7 build 1003 is now available. Please upgrade. Please tell us
if the auto-update doesn't work for you.
Changelog:
1002:
- Fix a major recent bug which caused bandwidth usage way over the
limit, low payload % (inefficient use of bandwidth) and packets that
were far too large.
1003:
- M
Freenet 0.7 build 1003 is now available. Please upgrade. Please tell us
if the auto-update doesn't work for you.
Changelog:
1002:
- Fix a major recent bug which caused bandwidth usage way over the
limit, low payload % (inefficient use of bandwidth) and packets that
were far too large.
1003:
- M
Freenet 0.7 build 1001 is now available. Please upgrade. Tell me if the
auto-update doesn't work for you. 1000 and 1001 consist mostly of
bugfixes, mostly relating to recent problems with high bandwidth usage
(above the specified limit) and low payload (efficiency) percentage. If
you are currently
Freenet 0.7 build 1001 is now available. Please upgrade. Tell me if the
auto-update doesn't work for you. 1000 and 1001 consist mostly of
bugfixes, mostly relating to recent problems with high bandwidth usage
(above the specified limit) and low payload (efficiency) percentage. If
you are currently
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 06:42:40PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As prevously discussed, can we please make this a config option?
Sure. Any patch would be welcome.
>
> Thanks
> Ed
>
> On Friday 24 November 2006 19:17, nextgens at emu.freenetproject.org wrote:
> > Author: nextgens
> > Dat
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 06:42:40PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As prevously discussed, can we please make this a config option?
Sure. Any patch would be welcome.
>
> Thanks
> Ed
>
> On Friday 24 November 2006 19:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Author: nextgens
> > Date: 2006-11-25 00:
My node currently has 918 threads running. 408 of them are servicing FCP
connections (two threads are generally required for each connection).
Frost currently holds 183 connections, which occupy the bulk of the
above 408 threads.
Will the next version of Frost use FCP2's connection multiplexing
ca
My node currently has 918 threads running. 408 of them are servicing FCP
connections (two threads are generally required for each connection).
Frost currently holds 183 connections, which occupy the bulk of the
above 408 threads.
Will the next version of Frost use FCP2's connection multiplexing
ca
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 04:39:15PM +0100, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> * toad [2006-11-17 13:44:09]:
>
> > That's a bit disappointing... I thought the java plus JNI was half the
> > speed of the C version?
>
> Hmm, that's what I told you yesterday o
Would anyone who uses the Librarian plugin please download the latest
version from:
http://downloads.freenetproject.org/alpha/plugins/Librarian/Librarian-r10964.jar
A bug has been fixed that could allow a malicious index to insert
arbitrary HTML into search results and therefore compromize your an
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 09:46:43AM +0100, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> * Juiceman [2006-11-16 20:53:08]:
>
> > Could we get a new freenet-ext.jar built and uploaded pretty please?
>
> It will be as soon as it's ready. I use to give links to pre-releases of
> it on irc to get feedback...
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 04:39:15PM +0100, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote:
> * toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-17 13:44:09]:
>
> > That's a bit disappointing... I thought the java plus JNI was half the
> > speed of the C version?
>
> Hmm, that's wha
Would anyone who uses the Librarian plugin please download the latest
version from:
http://downloads.freenetproject.org/alpha/plugins/Librarian/Librarian-r10964.jar
A bug has been fixed that could allow a malicious index to insert
arbitrary HTML into search results and therefore compromize your an
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 09:46:43AM +0100, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote:
> * Juiceman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-16 20:53:08]:
>
> > Could we get a new freenet-ext.jar built and uploaded pretty please?
>
> It will be as soon as it's ready. I use to give links to pre-releases of
> it on irc
I'm not convinced about this one. If we need secure entropy, we get it
from Yarrow. Is this test code, or is it actually used? Have we been
using Random() all along when we could have been using Yarrow, or is
this only used for testing purposes?
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:41:21PM +, nextgens a
I'm not convinced about this one. If we need secure entropy, we get it
from Yarrow. Is this test code, or is it actually used? Have we been
using Random() all along when we could have been using Yarrow, or is
this only used for testing purposes?
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:41:21PM +, [EMAIL PRO
>
> Ian.
>
> On 15 Nov 2006, at 09:59, toad at freenetproject.org wrote:
>
> >System.out.println("## New jar written!
> >"+fetchedVersion+ " " +fNew.getAbsolutePath());
>
> Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Ch
+0000, toad wrote:
> What do we want the default heuristics to be for containers?
>
> Presently, we have:
> Any file below 64kB is considered for inclusion in a container.
> Only one container will be inserted per freesite.
> It is allowed to grow up to 2MB, then files ar
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 03:41:21PM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> toad wrote:
> >Did we decide that there is no need to include any hard entropy?
>
> I believe so - the IV is random and guaranteed to be unique.
>
Well, it's pseudorandom... *Probably* enough; anythi
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 03:40:10PM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> toad wrote:
> >From Frost. Good idea? Bad idea? Given that we will have true opennet
> >also?
>
> I think it's a great idea to introduce friends to one another in a
> limited and relatively safe ca
No. Until we have encoded everything, we can't create the top-level
metadata, so we don't know how many blocks it will be.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:15:57PM +, nextgens at freenetproject.org wrote:
> Author: nextgens
> Date: 2006-11-14 22:15:56 + (Tue, 14 Nov 2006)
> New Revision: 10922
>
Did we decide that there is no need to include any hard entropy?
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:32:18AM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> I've added a page to the wiki describing some changes to the low-level
> crypto that Matthew and I discussed over the summer. Please review them
> if you have time -
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:04:59AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Dude, don't we have a logging mechanism?
>
> On that subject, the node is currently generating a ridiculous
> quantity of debugging output on startup (again), we really need to
> clean that up.
We're not talking about startup here.
ed in the
manifest.
--
Automatic node reference harvest script:
[EMAIL
PROTECTED],c~rEubYQfgJD1E8OxJizGkyAWbkusQx27YsQbOineDg,AQABAAE/auto-refs/2
node ref: http://dark-code.bulix.org/o0ur55-15691?raw
---
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 02:19:27PM +0000, toad wrote:
> What do we want the default heuri
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 03:41:21PM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> toad wrote:
> >Did we decide that there is no need to include any hard entropy?
>
> I believe so - the IV is random and guaranteed to be unique.
>
Well, it's pseudorandom... *Probably* enough; anythi
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 03:40:10PM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> toad wrote:
> >From Frost. Good idea? Bad idea? Given that we will have true opennet
> >also?
>
> I think it's a great idea to introduce friends to one another in a
> limited and relatively safe ca
No. Until we have encoded everything, we can't create the top-level
metadata, so we don't know how many blocks it will be.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:15:57PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: nextgens
> Date: 2006-11-14 22:15:56 + (Tue, 14 Nov 2006)
> New Revision: 10922
>
> Modified:
Did we decide that there is no need to include any hard entropy?
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:32:18AM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> I've added a page to the wiki describing some changes to the low-level
> crypto that Matthew and I discussed over the summer. Please review them
> if you have time -
From Frost. Good idea? Bad idea? Given that we will have true opennet
also?
- VolodyA! V [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2006.11.14 - 08:45:56GMT -
I don't know if i'll be able to persuade you to do that though, here is just a
recap of what i was talking about.
What i was thinking about is actu
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 09:38:45PM +0100, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> * toad [2006-11-13 20:15:09]:
>
> > Should we add Entry Point to the default indexes? I have added
> > AnotherIndex, as well as Indicia and the original darknet index.
>
> I'm not k
Should we add Entry Point to the default indexes? I have added
AnotherIndex, as well as Indicia and the original darknet index.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
U
What do we want the default heuristics to be for containers?
Presently, we have:
Any file below 64kB is considered for inclusion in a container.
Only one container will be inserted per freesite.
It is allowed to grow up to 2MB, then files are rejected and inserted
separately.
Obviously this sucks
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 09:38:45PM +0100, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote:
> * toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-13 20:15:09]:
>
> > Should we add Entry Point to the default indexes? I have added
> > AnotherIndex, as well as Indicia and the original darknet index.
>
Should we add Entry Point to the default indexes? I have added
AnotherIndex, as well as Indicia and the original darknet index.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-
What do we want the default heuristics to be for containers?
Presently, we have:
Any file below 64kB is considered for inclusion in a container.
Only one container will be inserted per freesite.
It is allowed to grow up to 2MB, then files are rejected and inserted
separately.
Obviously this sucks
am continuing my conversation here, see below.
- Forwarded message from Mail Delivery System -
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-26) on servalan
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=3.1.4
Envelope-to
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:20:04 +
Received: from toad by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1Gj0Gh-0002GN-6K
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:20:03 +
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:20:03 +
T
- toad at zceUWxlSaHLmvEMnbr4RHnVfehA - 2006.11.01 - 00:56:18GMT
-
Have you thought about Worst as an fproxy plugin?
Apologies if this arrives twice, had some bugs to fix.
- WorstAnonimous - 2006.11.04 - 10:48:52GMT -
Well i briefly thought about it, but i couldn't
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 2006.11.01 - 00:56:18GMT
-
Have you thought about Worst as an fproxy plugin?
Apologies if this arrives twice, had some bugs to fix.
- WorstAnonimous - 2006.11.04 - 10:48:52GMT -
Well i briefly thought about it, but i couldn't find any information
abo
Isn't the main thing we need to test whether text/plain that looks like
text/html will be rendered as such?
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 04:10:08PM +, nextgens at freenetproject.org wrote:
> Author: nextgens
> Date: 2006-11-04 16:10:00 + (Sat, 04 Nov 2006)
> New Revision: 10815
>
> Modified:
>
Isn't the main thing we need to test whether text/plain that looks like
text/html will be rendered as such?
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 04:10:08PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: nextgens
> Date: 2006-11-04 16:10:00 + (Sat, 04 Nov 2006)
> New Revision: 10815
>
> Modified:
>trunk/fre
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 09:25:36AM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> toad wrote:
> >Yes, but we will want to forward the blocks ASAP, rather than waiting
> >for everything to arrive, and we can't do that until we have the DataInsert
> >/ DataReply.
>
> Why not
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 09:25:36AM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> toad wrote:
> >Yes, but we will want to forward the blocks ASAP, rather than waiting
> >for everything to arrive, and we can't do that until we have the DataInsert
> >/ DataReply.
>
> Why not
So when we accept a request for a peer, and it completes, we then
allocate it another token?
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 06:50:37PM +, mrogers at freenetproject.org wrote:
> Author: mrogers
> Date: 2006-11-02 18:50:28 + (Thu, 02 Nov 2006)
> New Revision: 10797
>
> Added:
>trunk/apps/load-
DataLength is in bytes not bits.
Also I'm not sure what you're doing with the encoding; the control
messages are UTF-8 in FCP2, but the content can be anything you like as
long as you specify it; the length must be correct, *in bytes*. Suggest
you turn the string into bytes, then get the length of
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 10:07:58AM +0100, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> * toad [2006-11-02 01:40:09]:
>
> > Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
> > features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sourcing Java?
> > Some of the 1
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:01:21AM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> toad wrote:
> >Because 90%+ of traffic is data blocks, and small messages take
> >precedence; therefore any message stuck behind a large number of data
> >blocks will take some time to arrive.
>
> Under
So when we accept a request for a peer, and it completes, we then
allocate it another token?
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 06:50:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: mrogers
> Date: 2006-11-02 18:50:28 + (Thu, 02 Nov 2006)
> New Revision: 10797
>
> Added:
>trunk/apps/load-balancing-si
DataLength is in bytes not bits.
Also I'm not sure what you're doing with the encoding; the control
messages are UTF-8 in FCP2, but the content can be anything you like as
long as you specify it; the length must be correct, *in bytes*. Suggest
you turn the string into bytes, then get the length of
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 10:07:58AM +0100, Florent Daignière (NextGen$) wrote:
> * toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-02 01:40:09]:
>
> > Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
> > features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sourcing J
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 11:01:21AM +, Michael Rogers wrote:
> toad wrote:
> >Because 90%+ of traffic is data blocks, and small messages take
> >precedence; therefore any message stuck behind a large number of data
> >blocks will take some time to arrive.
>
> Under
Should we reconsider our current ban on using java 1.5-specific
features, now that Sun has publicly committed to open-sourcing Java?
Some of the 1.5 language features are *really* nice in terms of saving
space and avoiding unnecessary complexity.
Note that it may be some time before GCJX ships (an
1 - 100 of 1637 matches
Mail list logo
