>From: "Lars Juel Nielsen"
>to take down a darknet you have to find participants and trick
>them to letting you in and then you can start finding out which hosts
>are part of it.
Wait - Wait - You don't have to be tricked into letting someone in. All they
have to do is go to the IRC Chat and
On 8/24/06, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote:
> opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one
> of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but
> once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and
> inserting what files. So it could be argued
opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one
of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but
once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and
inserting what files. So it could be argued that a darknet is much
riskier than an opennet. In
So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there
another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover?
>From: "Evan Daniel"
>Reply-To: evand at pobox.com, support at freenetproject.org
>To: "diddler4u at hotmail.com"
>CC: support at freenetproject.org
>Subject: Re:
What about a pipe to the 0.5 freenet from 0.7 that allows access to the
data? A 1-way street. 0.7 can add data to the 0.7 freenet, but can and to
the 0.5 freenet. Only access the data. From what I have gathered,
'inserting' data into freenet is not a quick task.
As I see it 0.7 relies on a
On 8/24/06, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote:
> True, but the opennet isn't illegal.
> I'm not in any way saying the darknet shouldn't be added...it's a
> great feature...but freenet has always been an opennet, and that
> should be done first. People who want a darknet are probably already
> using
This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
admin at winstonsmith.info. For information about anonymity, see
Evan,
Would you define this statement? "they're (developers) working against a
very real
clock."
_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
"As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node
information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less
than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but
that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a
0.7 is currently darknet only. 0.5 is opennet only.
On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
> So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there
> another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover?
>
>
> >From: "Evan Daniel"
> >Reply-To: evand at pobox.com, support
On 8/24/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote:
> Evan,
>
> Would you define this statement? "they're (developers) working against a
> very real
> clock."
Happily. At some point, running Freenet will (likely) become illegal,
assuming current trends continue. This includes in the West. It may
Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens
to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main
network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is
setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to
everyone else. Pretty
(with a very long blank space in the middle of my
reading).
Nicholas Sturm
nicksturm at earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060824/f838f
I've got a question for the developers.
First a couple of comments.
I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it
somewhere else I welcome it.
I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. I
don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I do
rg
>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
>Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
>Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Mel Charters
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060824/55875f47/attachment.html>
On 24 Aug 2006 10:46:58 -0400, Rowland wrote:
> A me-too and a summary of the discussion thus far as I see it:
>
> 1. Breaking backward compatibility is a bad thing.
> 2. Saying you won't ever do it again is small comfort.
> 3. Providing a migration path would help a lot.
> 4. I don't care about
t; > Van
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Support mailing list
> > > > Support at freenetproject.org
> > > > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
> > > > Unsubscribe at
A me-too and a summary of the discussion thus far as I see it:
1. Breaking backward compatibility is a bad thing.
2. Saying you won't ever do it again is small comfort.
3. Providing a migration path would help a lot.
4. I don't care about the darknet. I don't object to its existence but I have
tproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060824/6e385dbf/attachment.pgp>
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 15:19, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> - Don't start the updater if the wrapper is broken
I have problems with this one. I do not run the wrapper - I do want freenet to
download new stable versions and then quit.
I have the java command that starts freenet in a loop and
scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060824/7e90e8ac/attachment.pgp>
ian.dyndns.org
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060824/ae831dd3/attachment.pgp>
Choose:
1) 0.5:
- the branch stable is in effect the branch unstable. both share the same code, eventhough the 'stable' is called 0.5 and the unstable "pre 0.6" or something like that
- unstable (eventhough the branch is called 'stable'): there are still major problems with the
I've got a question for the developers.
First a couple of comments.
I've been watching the thread 0.5 vs 0.7, and although you want to move it
somewhere else I welcome it.
I brought up 0.7 about 5 days ago. It's been running ever since, I think. I
don't monitor the PC that it is on, but I
A me-too and a summary of the discussion thus far as I see it:
1. Breaking backward compatibility is a bad thing.
2. Saying you won't ever do it again is small comfort.
3. Providing a migration path would help a lot.
4. I don't care about the darknet. I don't object to its existence but I have
On 24 Aug 2006 10:46:58 -0400, Rowland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A me-too and a summary of the discussion thus far as I see it:
1. Breaking backward compatibility is a bad thing.
2. Saying you won't ever do it again is small comfort.
3. Providing a migration path would help a lot.
4. I don't
Evan,
Would you define this statement? they're (developers) working against a
very real
clock.
_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
Should not this paragraph say how one gets to it?
Is there a Help Site that goes deeper into the questions newbies may have about Freenet, and where people can contribute too?Yes, an unofficial, more elaborate Freenet Help Site was created, to go deeper into the questions newbies may have
Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens
to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main
network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is
setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to
everyone else. Pretty
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Evan,
Would you define this statement? they're (developers) working against a
very real
clock.
Happily. At some point, running Freenet will (likely) become illegal,
assuming current trends continue. This includes in the West. It may
What about a pipe to the 0.5 freenet from 0.7 that allows access to the
data? A 1-way street. 0.7 can add data to the 0.7 freenet, but can and to
the 0.5 freenet. Only access the data. From what I have gathered,
'inserting' data into freenet is not a quick task.
As I see it 0.7 relies on a
So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there
another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover?
From: Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], support@freenetproject.org
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: support@freenetproject.org
As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node
information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less
than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but
that group might be 100 people. Unless someone in the 2 groups makes a
Title: Re: [freenet-support] Query
Try
http://web.archive.org/web/20050312175911/http://www.freenethelp.org/html/FreenetForDummies.html#WikiHeadnote_200
for archived Free Help site
Should not this paragraph
say how one gets to it?
Is there a Help Site that goes deeper
into the questions
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I see it 0.7 relies on a bunch of people hooking up by sharing node
information. I may be a part of a freenet 0.7 network that consists of less
than 20 people. Out there somewhere else is another group of people, but
that group might be
True, but the opennet isn't illegal.
I'm not in any way saying the darknet shouldn't be added...it's a
great feature...but freenet has always been an opennet, and that
should be done first. People who want a darknet are probably already
using other programs like Waste. If they start thinking
From: Lars Juel Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to take down a darknet you have to find participants and trick
them to letting you in and then you can start finding out which hosts
are part of it.
Wait - Wait - You don't have to be tricked into letting someone in. All they
have to do is go to the
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So by running 0.7 in default mode I'm running in darknet? Or is there
another piece of the freenet puzzle I need to discover?
It is a darknet because unless you give out your ref to someone
(like currently on IRC but that will change
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, but the opennet isn't illegal.
I'm not in any way saying the darknet shouldn't be added...it's a
great feature...but freenet has always been an opennet, and that
should be done first. People who want a darknet are probably already
On 8/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Lars Juel Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to take down a darknet you have to find participants and trick
them to letting you in and then you can start finding out which hosts
are part of it.
Wait - Wait - You don't have to be tricked into
On 8/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, but the opennet isn't illegal.
I'm not in any way saying the darknet shouldn't be added...it's a
great feature...but freenet has always been an opennet, and that
should be done first. People who want a darknet are probably already
opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one
of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but
once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and
inserting what files. So it could be argued that a darknet is much
riskier than an opennet.
On 8/24/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
opennets are only bad in certain circumstances. The USA is not yet one
of them. With a darknet, it may be harder to get into the network, but
once your in it's a LOT easier to identify who is sharing and
inserting what files. So it could be
43 matches
Mail list logo
