Juiceman wrote:
With 10 connections, the data that could intercepted by one attacker
is roughly 10%. The problem is the attacker doesn't know how many
connections you have, so you could just be passing on data from any
number of connections you have.
It's currently trivialy easy to
It seems so, as if the snapshots do not get updated anymore. At least the
unstable-latest.jar (or similiar, the file which gets downloaded from the update
script) is still version 60103, although 60105 was already announced.
___
Support mailing list
In einer eMail vom Di, 27. Apr. 2004 17:40 MEZ schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In einer eMail vom Di, 27. Apr. 2004 16:26 MEZ schreibt Niklas Bergh [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
As soon as a new build with your logging improvements gets out I will report what is
loged then, thanks for your help so far. :)
In einer eMail vom Mi, 28. Apr. 2004 14:28 MEZ schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Error Action cannot be taken after termination does not happen anymore after
the update to 60079, strange. (and nice ;) )
Have to correct me, they reappeared. For some reason not one of them occured at first,
so I
In einer eMail vom Di, 27. Apr. 2004 15:44 MEZ schreibt Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 01:57:41PM +0200, Rama Jagerman wrote:
Current upstream bandwidth usage 164677 bytes/second (164.7%)
[...]
average out to no more than the target. HOWEVER, there is a hard limit
of 140% of
In einer eMail vom Di, 27. Apr. 2004 15:25 MEZ schreibt Toad [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:16:41AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In einer eMail vom Di, 27. Apr. 2004 13:03 MEZ schreibt Niklas Bergh [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
There seems to be a whole bunch of different temp files
I wanted to report, that I get currently a lot of the following error messages:
Action cannot be taken after termination java.lang.Exception: debug
Please close() me manually in finalizer: Key: *removed* Buffer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
*removed*:temp:*removed* New: true ( 0 of 262460 read)
In einer eMail vom Fr, 23. Apr. 2004 5:45 MEZ schreibt Galen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Freenet People,
I'd like to hear about your experience with and uses for freenet. I'm
interested in those that use freenet. How usable is it? What is your
setup? What kind of performance do you get? What kinds
In einer eMail vom Di, 16. März 2004 17:28 MEZ schreibt Niklas Bergh [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
Fwolff said:
And to the philosophy of some devs: RAM is cheap
New SDRAM will be detected only with half of it's normal size or even not
detected at all in old computers
When I was having problems with
In einer eMail vom Sa, 13. März 2004 3:52 MEZ schreibt Chris Gentile [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
I am also struggling with 5074.
Here is my freenet.conf:
ipAddress=www.gentilehome.com
listenPort=27882
seedNodes=seednodes.ref
outputBandwidthLimit=48000
storeSize=3G
overloadHigh=0.6
overloadLow=0.4
I've
I will try another update now, but I wanted to report this,
since I have not read of a similar problem with that build until now in the
support group.
It failed, too. Just now I run that build without the webinterface, but I will
switch back to the old build, soon.
It works again in 6 :)
I yesterday executed the update.sh script and got that way the 6495 build. But I had
to reinstall the old build a hour later, because with 6495 build the webinterface
stopped working. At least I could not access it with any network computer I tried, and
that worked all builds before. I cannot
I will try another update now, but I wanted to report this,
since I have not read of a similar problem with that build until now in the
support group.
It failed, too. Just now I run that build without the webinterface, but I will switch
back to the old build, soon.
In einer eMail vom So, 15. Feb. 2004 21:43 MEZ schreibt Paul Derbyshire [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
On 15 Feb 2004 at 18:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Die E-Mail, die Sie am Fri, 13 Feb 2004 21:14:02 -0500 an [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gesendet haben, konnte nicht zugestellt werden, da die E-Mail Adresse
In einer eMail vom Di, 10. Feb. 2004 15:57 MEZ schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In einer eMail vom Di, 10. Feb. 2004 12:44 MEZ schreibt Niklas Bergh [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
This is prbably not causing you trouble.. I have committed some logging
changes that will better say what the cause is now (will
After updating to 6469 I always get this log entry right after starting the node,
before the first request is made.
12:13:07 Size was wrong reading in SimpleDataObjectStore
Until now I was also not able to run the node for longer then one or two hours, while
it before would run for more then
In einer eMail vom Di, 10. Feb. 2004 12:44 MEZ schreibt Niklas Bergh [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
This is prbably not causing you trouble.. I have committed some logging
changes that will better say what the cause is now (will incluse a
callstack and what the atual sizes are). Let me know what it says.
After upgrading to 6459 I got this situation:
Current routingTime 18ms
Current messageSendTimeRequest 0ms
Pooled threads running jobs 22 (20%)
Current upstream bandwidth usage 211 bytes/second (2,1%)
Estimated external pSearchFailed (based only on QueryRejections due to load):
thx
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
thx
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just do not know, where to report this, (probably it was noticed already
anyway...), but the bandwith limiting in unstable version 6430 seems to be broken:
Current upstream bandwidth usage 14576 bytes/second (145,8%)
And the node is not QueryRejecting or something like that and the load
21 matches
Mail list logo
