In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't watched the lists for some weeks now (I was on a longer
business related trip). So my question: Do you still plan on switching
the whole network over to UDP based transfers?
Yes, although we may implement a TCP based transport
I can understand the need to allow people who use Freenet, if they
desire, to keep their nodes off any node lists. This is perfectly
understandable.
However, I understand that for new users who do not know anyone who runs
a freenet node, the client downloads a list of nodes to make initial
The 52 is the number of nodes that see your address as that address. The
second address is out of range because some node has its connections
forwarded internally. Possibly we shouldn't send the address messages if
they include internal IPs...
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 11:58:13PM -0700, shaun
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 07:17:03PM -, Anonymous wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't watched the lists for some weeks now (I was on a longer
business related trip). So my question: Do you still plan on switching
the whole network over to UDP based
Firstly, I would like to restate the current policy:
Freenet 0.7 will have two separate networks (just like at present we
have stable and unstable).
One is Freenet 0.7/Open.
The other is Freenet 0.7/Dark.
0.7/Open will function more or less as the current network does. It will
be possible for new
Why does it take forever for freenet to answer HTTP requests? Once it answers
them the throughput is nothing
to complain about, just eventually when it answers them. What can cause this?
I'm running on FreeBSD 4.10 with Sun Java 1.4.2
___
Support
