Le samedi 16 mai 2009 20:10:00, Matthew Toseland a ?crit :
> On Saturday 16 May 2009 15:02:19 Thomas Sachau wrote:
> > Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> > > On Friday 15 May 2009 16:35:40 Thomas Sachau wrote:
> > >> Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> > >>> On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:35:07 Thomas Sachau wrote:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090518/2544e319/attachment.pgp>
e
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090518/d2b63652/attachment.pgp>
next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090518/1673764e/attachment.pgp>
On Saturday, 16. May 2009 16:02:19 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Additionally, Gentoo is about choice, if there is a warning, the user can
choose, with a forcing script, there is no choice, which is a bad idea for
this philosophy, therefor i vote against such a script for linux.
But in Gentoo it would
Hi,
It would be nice, if I could tell freenet to use standard ports for
communication - especially for connections inside a LAN (where the possibility
that an admin is watching all used ports might be a bit higher than on the
internet).
I'd think it would be useful to just test a list of
On Sunday, 17. May 2009 00:59:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Not much point hiding it if you're broadcasting the existence of nodes via
MDNSDiscovery!
...you're right for OpenNet... should have seen that before.
I assume only a full steganographic announcement framework could help there
(have
Arne Babenhauserheide schrieb:
On Saturday, 16. May 2009 16:02:19 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Additionally, Gentoo is about choice, if there is a warning, the user can
choose, with a forcing script, there is no choice, which is a bad idea for
this philosophy, therefor i vote against such a script for
Le samedi 16 mai 2009 20:10:00, Matthew Toseland a écrit :
On Saturday 16 May 2009 15:02:19 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Matthew Toseland schrieb:
On Friday 15 May 2009 16:35:40 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Matthew Toseland schrieb:
On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:35:07 Thomas Sachau wrote:
Matthew
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 02:17:48PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
We don't store in the cache if we have stored in the store.
Are you sure?!
Hmmm, in fact we do store in both. Do you have any opinion on this?
Spontaneous opinion is it may be suboptimal with unnecessary overwrites of
10 matches
Mail list logo
