On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:02:07AM +0300, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
> >
> > Do you need to? We have control over individual packets with UDP; it
> > should be pretty easy to throttle. Also I don't see why it shouldn't be
> > easy to do it with token bucket filters in iptables, regardless of
> > protoco
On 6/13/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 que
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 t
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 tr
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:37:41PM +0200, Someone wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> > As of today, we are down to ONE daily updated DBR index freesite - that
> > being The Freedom Engine. Its author's dedication is greatly appreciated
> > - bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> As of today, we are down to ONE daily updated DBR index freesite - that
> being The Freedom Engine. Its author's dedication is greatly appreciated
> - but this is one hell of a single point of failure, and we need more
> tha
