roject.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20080507/489d70a5/attachment.pgp>
t; >they regard it as a denial of service attack? Has this policy changed?
>
> No, it hasn't (notwithstanding the comment re Freenet that I quoted).
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20080507/70fca29f/attachment.pgp>
s to reseed? Does
it
> >show the announcing alert on the homepage? What does it say in the
> >wrapper.log?
>
> On the homepage, it said that it was trying to connect, and that it
> would be slow for a while. I've e-mailed you the relevant part of
> the wrapper.log.
What if you click on the alert? Show me the details.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20080507/f9bbecdc/attachment.pgp>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was going to just post this on my flog (which I did) but decided that
since I've no idea if any devs read it, I want to be certain that it gets
SOME actual notice by developer types and thus posted it here also
I've been taking a bit of time lately
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Evan Daniel wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:39 PM, MyTwoCents
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > I was going to just post this on my flog (which I did) but decided that
> > since I've no idea if any devs read it, I
At 09:19 PM 5/6/2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > ... And I've realized that setting Freenet's priority to
> > NORMAL in Process Explorer didn't persist, so I need to figure our
> > how to make it so.
>
>In wrapper.conf.
Doh. Thanks.
> > > > > > Although Freenet reports that it's trying to
Success/failure feedback isn't feasible as it would transform the problem into
a hashcash problem. What is feasible is adding one more character which would
be a checksum of the rest, of course this would mess up sometimes...
On Wednesday 07 May 2008 02:39, MyTwoCents wrote:
I was going to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:39 PM, MyTwoCents [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was going to just post this on my flog (which I did) but decided that
