On Saturday 21 May 2011 18:47:58 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 20 May 2011 19:23:08 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Another source says the whitelisting thing is not deployed yet, and it'll
> > be patchy for a while. We'll see. If it is deployed, then IMHO:
> > - Darknet is essential.
> > - This
On Friday 20 May 2011 19:23:08 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Another source says the whitelisting thing is not deployed yet, and it'll be
> patchy for a while. We'll see. If it is deployed, then IMHO:
> - Darknet is essential.
> - This means we need really good darknet support e.g. FOAF connections,
On Saturday 21 May 2011 18:47:58 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 20 May 2011 19:23:08 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Another source says the whitelisting thing is not deployed yet, and it'll
> > be patchy for a while. We'll see. If it is deployed, then IMHO:
> > - Darknet is essential.
> > - This
On Friday 20 May 2011 19:23:08 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Another source says the whitelisting thing is not deployed yet, and it'll be
> patchy for a while. We'll see. If it is deployed, then IMHO:
> - Darknet is essential.
> - This means we need really good darknet support e.g. FOAF connections,
Another source says the whitelisting thing is not deployed yet, and it'll be
patchy for a while. We'll see. If it is deployed, then IMHO:
- Darknet is essential.
- This means we need really good darknet support e.g. FOAF connections,
invites, i.e. the planned darknet enhancements.
- It will be la
Another source says the whitelisting thing is not deployed yet, and it'll be
patchy for a while. We'll see. If it is deployed, then IMHO:
- Darknet is essential.
- This means we need really good darknet support e.g. FOAF connections,
invites, i.e. the planned darknet enhancements.
- It will be la
