If you are reading this through the new [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing
lists then please disregard it.
IMPORTANT
Within the next 48 hours I plan to disable email delivery for the old
lists.sourceforge.net mailing lists.
You should go to http://freenetproject.org/in
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 10:47:36PM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> An automatic cataloging system.
>
> What if we created a catalog key type who's data could be
> appended to by anyone as long as the appendix was a single
> line that conforms to a specific syntax, is not already
> contained in the
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 11:02:09PM -0800, joel orton wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> Why are you making a new mailing list?
Because Sourceforge sucks under load.
AGL
--
Join in the new game that's sweeping the country. It's called "Bureaucracy".
Everybody stands in a circle. The first person to do a
On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 09:57:01PM -0600, Brandon wrote:
> > Your back on legal loopholes. The fact is that the shielded node relies on
> > the existance of public nodes, so you have simply moved the target that
> > the enemy needs to have shut down.
>
> You don't move the target, you reduce its
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Scott Gregory Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Scott Gregory Miller wrote:
> >
> > > Why not have a datstructure that just doesnt grow to big, a lot like the
> > > Freenet datastore, rather than worrying about clearing.
>
On 2 Jan 2001, Steven Hazel wrote:
> "Mark J. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > >From blah blah blah
> > >
> > > confuses the fucking braindead parser. Arrrgghh.
> >
> > The list server even munges it with a > prefix it's so evil!
>
> From-mangling is a more complicated iss
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 08:29:01PM -0800, Mr . Bad wrote:
> > "OS" == Oskar Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Shy nodes ("Don't talk to strangers."). I realize it's a
> >> social rather than a technical solution, but it might be the
> >> only one that would even help.
>
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 04:25:29PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> A cancer node can do the following Bad Things:
> a) return a bad KSK
> b) not find a key and take up excess HTL or clock time
> c) log connections, node addresses, etc
> a) is your own fault for using KSKs; they are necessary to
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 10:47:36PM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> An automatic cataloging system.
>
> What if we created a catalog key type who's data could be
> appended to by anyone as long as the appendix was a single
> line that conforms to a specific syntax, is not already
> contained in the
> > > And of course browsers *could* implement this
> functionality themselves.
> >
> > It seems risky to make the assumption that all browser code
> should be
> > trusted esp. given that we have no ability to audit the
> code. A piece of
> > firewalling code would seem more appropiate under
> "MT" == Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Me> One thing I find a little strange is that we haven't had to
Me> deal with cancer nodes yet.
MT> Because they require considerable resources to implement and
MT> run and rarely give useful results, beyond just finding
> "OS" == Oskar Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
OS> We have no solution to the problem of the honest cancer (not
OS> even Mr. Bad's "lets break freenet" proposal really
OS> helps).
En garde! Defend that statement, sir.
~Mr. Bad
--
~~~
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 11:14:36AM -0800, Mr. Bad wrote:
> I don't think someone would make a cancer node to be useful; they
> would make one to be destructive.
Please forgive me if this is a "person who doesn't understand Freenet's
attack on Freenet." I think I understand what's happening well
>
> I don't think someone would make a cancer node to be useful; they
> would make one to be destructive.
>
> Also, it'd be fairly easy to adapt Fred to do things like: bury
> requests, return garbled results, etc. etc. w/r/t KSKs, I don't think
> they're the only problem: As far as I can tell,
On 2 Jan 2001, Mr.Bad wrote:
> > "OS" == Oskar Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> OS> We have no solution to the problem of the honest cancer (not
> OS> even Mr. Bad's "lets break freenet" proposal really
> OS> helps).
>
> En garde! Defend that statement, sir.
On the co
> "SGM" == Scott Gregory Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Me> As far as I can tell, Fred does -not- check CHKs or do other
Me> verification on data it gets.
SGM> Having spent nearly 12 hours a day for a month to implement
SGM> this, I can say fairly certainly that Fred does
> "SGM" == Scott Gregory Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
OS> We have no solution to the problem of the honest cancer (not
OS> even Mr. Bad's "lets break freenet" proposal really
OS> helps).
Me> En garde! Defend that statement, sir.
SGM> On the contrary, the burden o
Brandon:
> > If you're running a shielded node, your address is relative to the address
> > of the proxy node. I suppose you could say that you can "switch" proxy
> > node by starting to send your messages through a new proxy, in which case
> > you'll still be receiving messages from the old prox
Ian:
> > No - my intention is that every time you set a datasource in a message,
> > you can select a different shield node, so that even if one of those
Adam:
> It's like switching IP all the time - and I don't think it's going
> to work.
Yes, it's exactly like switching IP all the time. So i
Brandon:
> > There also needs to be some way in the protocol that the shielded nodes
> > specifies that it wants to be shielded so that the proxy node can
> > differentiate between nodes that do and do not want to be shielded.
Scott:
> No, you still dont seem to get it. Shielded nodes have encr
> No it doesn't. The shield node has a public/private keypair. Nodes using
> the shield encrypt their address using the shield's public key, and attach
> the ciphertext to their reference. The shield only needs to decrypt that
> field with its private key and send the message to the address it
BC:
> "Forbid" was a poor choice of word. We need a method of using client-side
> code that does not compromise the anonymity or security of the user.
What do you suggest?
___
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net
Brandon wrote:
> Yeah, but the shield node still needs to know to forward messages to
> shielded nodes.
>
> So if the if the node on tcp/141.215.69.7:19114 gets a message for
> tcp/141.215.69.7:19114/12345 it needs to recall that this is referring to
> tcp/192.168.0.2:1876. So it has to keep a t
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 01:21:51PM -0800, Mr.Bad wrote:
<>
> I agree with Oskar that what I described wouldn't solve this
> problem. The only thing I can think of that would is having the
> routing algorithms try to preserve diversity in the routing table --
> which would probably be hard to do r
Howdy all!
On another mailing list I'm on, they run a Usenet news server just for
themselves and with a mail-news gateway to-from their server (with some
restrictions so that mail-bombs and fake-headers don't cause problems)
could this be a solution? or do you really want it all on the global Us
Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> Just like you noted with the clusters, the question is whether operator of
> the "shadowed" node is providing anything to the network that makes it
> worthwhile (from the perspective of the network) for him to run a node at
> all. Since his node is serving data he is obvio
hi
I found some useful stuff about those protocol-handlers (http, https,
freenet) on the MSDN cds.
I'll try to implement a test dll tomorrow.
btw: the protocol-handler could forward the request to fproxy using sockets
(no java to binary compiler needed)
philipp
- Original Message -
From
> Brandon, why is SimplifiedClient printing the size of each message it
> inserts? I don't see anything obvious. It fucks with my logging.
The size of each message? I'm not getting that but I'll look into it.
> Also I found out a few days ago that getData doesn't work, but getMetaData
> does. T
>From "Mark J. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>So I insert a redirect like
>
>insert -createUpdate yes -increment 60 -htl 2
SSK@H-lqMDiPY2yDwOtFBrN~ShrDyjsdFtZItBbOTzk19w/wubba
>
>and what gets inserted is
>
>Metadata:
>Redirect
>increment=60
>baseline=210100
>End
>freenet:SSK@H-lqMDiPY2yDw
29 matches
Mail list logo
