[freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-29 Thread Conrad J. Sabatier
On 25-Oct-2005 Ed Tomlinson wrote: > On Tuesday 25 October 2005 05:57, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> Okay, so what is a reasonable limit? 4096 bytes? We have to have >> some >> limit to avoid memory DoS, as these will be kept in RAM for a >> while... > > Matthew, > > I my case 512 would have worked

Re: [freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-29 Thread Conrad J. Sabatier
On 25-Oct-2005 Ed Tomlinson wrote: > On Tuesday 25 October 2005 05:57, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> Okay, so what is a reasonable limit? 4096 bytes? We have to have >> some >> limit to avoid memory DoS, as these will be kept in RAM for a >> while... > > Matthew, > > I my case 512 would have worked

[freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-25 Thread Matthew Toseland
Okay, so what is a reasonable limit? 4096 bytes? We have to have some limit to avoid memory DoS, as these will be kept in RAM for a while... On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 03:32:09PM +0200, freenetwork at web.de wrote: > >> > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. > >> > > >> >

[freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-25 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 04:12:01PM -0500, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > > On 22-Oct-2005 Matthew Toseland wrote: > > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. > > > > Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about > > names > > in manifests or ZIP manifest

[freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-25 Thread Ed Tomlinson
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 05:57, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Okay, so what is a reasonable limit? 4096 bytes? We have to have some > limit to avoid memory DoS, as these will be kept in RAM for a while... Matthew, I my case 512 would have worked fine. Ed > On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 03:32:09PM +02

Re: [freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-25 Thread Ed Tomlinson
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 05:57, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Okay, so what is a reasonable limit? 4096 bytes? We have to have some > limit to avoid memory DoS, as these will be kept in RAM for a while... Matthew, I my case 512 would have worked fine. Ed > On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 03:32:09PM +02

Re: [freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-25 Thread Matthew Toseland
Okay, so what is a reasonable limit? 4096 bytes? We have to have some limit to avoid memory DoS, as these will be kept in RAM for a while... On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 03:32:09PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. > >> > > >> > Is

Re: [freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-25 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 04:12:01PM -0500, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > > On 22-Oct-2005 Matthew Toseland wrote: > > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. > > > > Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about > > names > > in manifests or ZIP manifest

[freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-23 Thread freenetw...@web.de
>> > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. >> > >> > Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about >> > names >> > in manifests or ZIP manifests here). Would it be better to use longer >> > filenames? >> >> If you mean just for filenames, that shoul

[freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-23 Thread Ed Tomlinson
On Saturday 22 October 2005 17:12, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > > On 22-Oct-2005 Matthew Toseland wrote: > > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. > > > > Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about > > names > > in manifests or ZIP manifests here)

Re: [freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-23 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. >> > >> > Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about >> > names >> > in manifests or ZIP manifests here). Would it be better to use longer >> > filenames? >> >> If you mean just for filenames, that shoul

Re: [freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-23 Thread Ed Tomlinson
On Saturday 22 October 2005 17:12, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > > On 22-Oct-2005 Matthew Toseland wrote: > > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. > > > > Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about > > names > > in manifests or ZIP manifests here)

[freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-22 Thread Matthew Toseland
There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about names in manifests or ZIP manifests here). Would it be better to use longer filenames? -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official

[freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-22 Thread Conrad J. Sabatier
On 22-Oct-2005 Matthew Toseland wrote: > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. > > Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about > names > in manifests or ZIP manifests here). Would it be better to use longer > filenames? If you mean just for filen

Re: [freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-22 Thread Conrad J. Sabatier
On 22-Oct-2005 Matthew Toseland wrote: > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. > > Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about > names > in manifests or ZIP manifests here). Would it be better to use longer > filenames? If you mean just for filen

[freenet-dev] Arbitrary limits

2005-10-22 Thread Matthew Toseland
There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about names in manifests or ZIP manifests here). Would it be better to use longer filenames? -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey