Ian Clarke wrote:
Steve Jurvetson wrote:
>> Welcome jurvetson!
>> Your password is: zok18wod.
Ee! Why would anyone need a privacy tool of any kind under
such circumstances?
Z
--
The best defence against logic is ignorance. The next best
is stupidity. Both can be used simultaneously.
Ian Clarke wrote:
Steve Jurvetson wrote:
Welcome jurvetson!
snip
Your password is: zok18wod.
Ee! Why would anyone need a privacy tool of any kind under
such circumstances?
Z
--
The best defence against logic is ignorance. The next best
is stupidity. Both can be used simultaneously.
Matthew Findley wrote:
Let me see if I can get caught up on whats gone on since I left work.
Oh, you were posting on your employer's time? I personally believe in
the presumed innocent until proven guilty, so rather than assuming
you guilty of misusing your work time for private activities, I'll
Paul wrote:
What country does respect freedoms? The US is getting to the point
where emgrating becomes a serious consideration for me.
I lived in Greece during the 1967-1974 dictatorship. Later I've
lived in England, in Germany, in Sweden and the Netherlands. Of all
these countries, Greece is the
Mr Matthew Findley
You made certain claims on this list regarding the possible penal
consequences of running a freenet node. I challenged you to provide
law and/or precedent references to support your claims. You failed
to do so. In fact, you silently ignored this challenge.
I also challenged you
Mailed this from the wrong address - it got caught for moderator
approval. Please don't approve that posting.
Toad wrote:
Anyone who wants in on the new stable network before it is officially
rolled out, please contact me, and get the new seednodes and jar file
from:
miguel wrote:
Just wondering... with all this encryption permeating Freenet
there remains a gaping hole through which the nazi's could saunter through
with their spy tools and legal bypasses to incriminate any and all Freenetters
they choose to incriminate... the ip address/port# of all. Even
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the uploader
Willful blindness can not protect you if it can be shown that you
had a reasonable suspicion to believe they you are committing a
crime. In fact in some cases a deliberate attempt to not obtain
knowledge is proof of that knowledge.
In my village,
Toad wrote:
Or something like that. The real and ever-present danger
against freenet is not in your IP being shown to your peers.
It is in (a) the integrity of its developers and (b) in the
security of the software archive. If the latter ever gets
compromised, we might all end up running a piece
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's because ISPs/Mail are protected by common carrier laws,
you are not. They pass laws that specifically say that if a
company is incorporated as a common carrier, then the items (or
data) they transport aren't their responsibility.
Do you have a pointer to those
Toad wrote:
You have taken extraordinary measures to protect against [the
ftp server being hacked], haven't you?
Umm, measures such as..? I don't see how you can defend against the
above, really.
Well, first of all the elementary stuff. No other services on the
same machine. You don't want your
Edward J. Huff wrote:
That is up to each node operator. Failure to block some content -- like
mp3's -- is a lot less serious than failure to block other content --
like kp. The node operator might decide to take the risk in the name of
civil disobedience for some content but not other.
Ian Clarke wrote:
s/does/does not
$ Error: open second argument to s
Z
--
Framtiden är som en babianröv, färggrann och full av skit.
Arne Anka
___
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Toad wrote:
IANAL (BIKAF), but I would expect that for ignorance to be willful it
can't be a side-effect of a goal, it must be a goal in itself. There
are plenty of reasons why someone might want to use Freenet other than
obtaining illegal content.
The problem is that ignorance is indeed a
Toad wrote:
The fundamental issues revolve around changes to source code.
Only in theory. In practice, the source code only affects your reputation.
The binary code affects the users. If you only protect the source code
(which is also what might get reviewed at some point or other), you will
only
Just to sing a different tune than the one everyone else is
singing, I upgraded to 5088 last night and it seems to work
relatively well. The load is considerably higher than with
5084 and the same configuration but, as far I can see without
studying logs, everything works as it should. Perhaps
Nicholas Sturm wrote:
Has anyone figured out what he had for lunch. The schmerk is almost
missing in his salute picture in the USA Today shot by AFP.
Does that stand for Air Force Photograph. I didn't say gone, just
almost missing.
What's a schmerk?
Agence France Presse.
Z
--
Framtiden är som
S wrote:
I don't really agree with the idea that such a pr0xy would bring
exposure or users to Freenet. Joe Surfer, upon finding your gatewayed
content in Google, is going to click through, access the content, and
move on, not realizing that he's ventured beyond the confines of the
normal web.
Toad wrote:
Well, this contradics what you just wrote above. If you are right
on this point, then your fears about thousands of users leeching
and burdening freenet without giving anything back are unfounded
already because of this, even disregarding my arguments above. Or
vice versa. Of course,
Toad wrote:
They are not indexed by google because by default fproxy sends a
robots.txt indicating that it shouldn't be spidered.
Aaah, I see. That explains S' comment too. Well, current
legislation does not require me to learn java, but it
does not forbid me to either ;)
[prosecutor's block
Toad wrote:
They are not indexed by google because by default fproxy sends a
robots.txt indicating that it shouldn't be spidered.
Aaah, I see. That explains S' comment too. Well, current
legislation does not require me to learn java, but it
does not forbid me to either ;)
[prosecutor's block
M. Seredszun wrote:
Couldn't retrieve key:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/BPC/3//*
Hops To Live: *15*
Error: *Route Not Found*
Can you help me Pls ?
Keep trying. It's out here, it's loading alright at
https://81.169.159.148:8080/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/BPC/3//
but it's slow. If nothing helps, download
David Masover wrote:
Of course, if you don't own
your own computer, how can you trust it? One-way trust. Suppose my bro
trusts me, but I don't trust him, I have root, and he wants Freenet.
You don't need root to run it and it's probably a good idea
to not run it as root even when you are
Alright, here's an o p e n f r e e n e t p r o x y (anti-
Google syntax): https://8 1 . 1 6 9 . 1 5 9 . 1 4 8 :8080/
I'd appreciate feedback from anyone who cares to play with it
and/or attempt to break it. I am particularly interested in
unlinked/undocumented FProxy functions which I should
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It could be that I have yet to even browse my own proxy successfully.
but I tried your site, and received a good 'ol --
Bad Gateway
The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
I restarted it two minutes ago, you must have hit it
right then. Try
Toad wrote:
Seems a bit flaky. Every so often I get an Apache error.
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access
/[EMAIL PROTECTED],aAEwN5~NVmuIvZdfqlORxg/BSIT/20// on
this server.
Ugh. Sometimes logging serves better purposes than policing.
I can't see what went wrong there. I do have some
I wrote:
I do have some mod_rewrite
rules in the proxy configuration in order to protect status
info etc, but this shouldn't have been caught by them, unless
the original URI contained a query string, i.e.
server:port/something?someother .
That was it; there was a query string date=some_date.
Toad wrote:
Is there a list somewhere of the query strings used?
For fproxy:
?key=key
?htl=number
?linkhtl=number
?mime=mime type
?date=date
?rdate=true|false
?force=short hex cookie
Probably there are more for the splitfile servlet.
I was trying to block access to ?setSimpleAdvancedMode=mode,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
***A couple problems so far.. All 4 sessions, It doesn't even appear to be
able to access the default ... never-fail site.. however there is a ton
of traffic, so i KNOW its finding nodes out there.
I suspect something with your firewall. What does it block?
Can you make it
The whole load/logging/key harvesting discussion I started here
a couple of days ago originated from my wish to make freenet
searchable, especially to the non-freenet world. So I installed
an open p r o x y in order to harvest keys, so that I could set
up a search engine.
What I only realised
Hello everyone.
I started a node on a machine with lots of bandwidth and a very
lousy I/O subsystem. Not much else is going on on the machine, so
without freenet the load is steadily between 0.01 and 0.10. When
freenet runs, the load is constantly around 3.50, with peaks
reaching well above 5.00.
Roger Oksanen wrote:
I run freenet niced at +10 on a 2x500MHz computer, load stays at 2-3 all
the time.
Ah yes, I forgot to mention that. It's niced at 19. Beats me how
something that's niced 19 can bring the load to 5.00, but that's
a different issue.
I suspect the problem you have lies in the
Toad wrote:
Strange. What is your logLevel ?
Well, that's relative. The log level is set to debug, but the
log file is a FIFO, where a simple perl script greps for URIs
and dumps the rest. My idea was to feed those URIs to mnogosearch
and create a non-anonymous search engine fo freenet.
Won't make
Toad wrote:
The thing is, the lack of search capabilities reduces
the useability of freenet
Of course. There are ways to implement search, however. Sooner or later
somebody will implement a good spider based anonymous search.
I searched a bit on the web. At
I wrote:
Taking what you say here for granted, the entire discussion
up to this point is probably a meaningless exchange based
on some misunderstanding on my part. But what?
[URIs from logs]
Would be interested to see some of this list.
Duh. So am I by now, but with all the messing around
35 matches
Mail list logo
