-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext
In <201010151629.56896.t...@amphibian.dyndns.org> Matthew Toseland
wrote:
>We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a
browser supporting Javascript. Yes or no answers would be useful
(feel free to make
You know what?
Why don't you do a freenet-browser in Java ?!? Than there's anything
you want - nice GUI, and complete control 'bout what freesites can
use/do. Oh, and DAUs (dumb a** users) don't have to point their
browsers at 127.0.0.1:, what is way to difficult for them to
understand anyway.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:10:55 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:55:18 +0400, Volodya wrote:
> > You misunderstood the poll question. Nobody is suggesting that
> > freesites should be allowed to have JS in them, but rather Freenet's
> > own web proxy would have JS in the interface.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:55:18 +0400, Volodya wrote:
> On 18.10.2010 23:29, Ray Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:11 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >
> >> It would be really helpful if people could spend a little time to
> >> understand what is being debated before they start ranting.
> >
> > Try
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 22:05 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> And my vote is to ignore the votes of people who can't be bothered to
> inform themselves before expressing an opinion on a subject.
>
What do you mean, "Can't be bothered"? I've been subscribed to this
group for ~5 months with the purpose o
First time lurker post.
Freenet already requires Java. This will only extend its function to the UI.
No changes will occur with regards to freesites, addons or seperate programs
that use freenet. Also people as versed in security as the freenet team are
don't see a security issue themselves.
If wha
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Ray Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:57 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > And this is the problem. If you admit that you don't understand the
> > issues then why express any opinion at all until you do?
>
> Because as I began learning about internet safety and
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:57 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> And this is the problem. If you admit that you don't understand the
> issues then why express any opinion at all until you do?
>
Because as I began learning about internet safety and security, js has
been at the top of the list as the de
On 10/18/2010 02:29 PM, Ray Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:11 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
>> It would be really helpful if people could spend a little time to
>> understand what is being debated before they start ranting.
>
> Try again. I subscribed to this list lastMay? I have receiv
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Ray Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:11 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> > It would be really helpful if people could spend a little time to
> > understand what is being debated before they start ranting.
>
> Try again. I subscribed to this list lastMay? I
On 18.10.2010 23:29, Ray Jones wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:11 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
It would be really helpful if people could spend a little time to
understand what is being debated before they start ranting.
Try again. I subscribed to this list lastMay? I have received
perhaps a
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:11 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> It would be really helpful if people could spend a little time to
> understand what is being debated before they start ranting.
Try again. I subscribed to this list lastMay? I have received
perhaps a half dozen messages since then until t
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM, wrote:
> Why should I allow JS for completely anonymous posted freesites?
>
Nobody is advocating that, Freenet filters out Javascript and many other
things that are downloaded from freesites.
It would be really helpful if people could spend a little time to unde
On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 08:55 -0400, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> >
> > IMHO "cpu draining" and "10 years" are kind of incompatible concepts!
>
> Lol, true :b. Nevertheless, I, for one, want Freenet to work on any
> computer, even old ones, not only on the latest quantum computers.
>
I think that cpu is
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:45:42 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 15 October 2010 17:07:09 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:29:52 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a
> > > browser supporting Javascript. Yes or no
> We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a browser
> supporting Javascript.
Why?
> Yes or no answers would be useful
No (way).
> (feel free to make further comments).
Javascript is the No 1 security hole in browsers - show me ONE exploit
that does not at least requir
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:29:52 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a
> browser supporting Javascript. Yes or no answers would be useful
> (feel free to make further comments). I will post a similar poll to
> FMS. I suggest somebody does Fros
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:43:00 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 15 October 2010 16:54:22 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:29:52 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a
> > > browser supporting Javascript. Yes or no
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:47:21 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Saturday 16 October 2010 11:30:59 David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 October 2010 10:58:30 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, right, it is also very insecure. I'm not sure what "incognito
> > > mode" is, and believe it or n
On Saturday 16 October 2010 11:30:59 David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
> On Saturday 16 October 2010 10:58:30 Dennis Nezic wrote:
>
> > Oh, right, it is also very insecure. I'm not sure what "incognito mode"
> > is, and believe it or not, not everyone uses Firefox or Chrome, but
> > won't JavaScript stil
On Friday 15 October 2010 17:07:09 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:29:52 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a
> > browser supporting Javascript. Yes or no answers would be useful
> > (feel free to make further comments). I
On Friday 15 October 2010 20:21:50 ringo wrote:
> I'm fine with js being used, but it should deprecate gracefully. As a
> previous poster noted, it's where 99% of browser exploits come through.
So you turn it off on your primary internet-web browser?
>
> Ringo
>
> On 10/15/2010 12:07 PM, Dennis
On Friday 15 October 2010 16:54:22 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:29:52 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a
> > browser supporting Javascript. Yes or no answers would be useful
> > (feel free to make further comments). I
On Saturday 16 October 2010 10:58:30 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> Oh, right, it is also very insecure. I'm not sure what "incognito mode"
> is, and believe it or not, not everyone uses Firefox or Chrome, but
> won't JavaScript still leak information like a drunk widow? (Ie. your
> browser, display resolu
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:45:32 +0200, Romain Dalmaso wrote:
> It's a no for me.
>
> I'm not at all against JavaScript, and it's safe to enable it in
> incognito mode (or when using a separate Firefox profile for Freenet).
Oh, right, it is also very insecure. I'm not sure what "incognito mode"
is, a
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:29 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a browser
> supporting Javascript. Yes or no answers would be useful (feel free to make
> further comments). I will post a similar poll to FMS. I suggest somebody does
> Fr
Matthew Toseland schreef:
We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a browser
supporting Javascript. Yes or no answers would be useful (feel free to make
further comments). I will post a similar poll to FMS. I suggest somebody does
Frost, I personally don't use Frost.
N
It's a no for me.
I'm not at all against JavaScript, and it's safe to enable it in
incognito mode (or when using a separate Firefox profile for Freenet).
The problem is that some users won't enable JS no matter what, and
some others won't be able to (e.g. because they are using a
non-conventional
I'm fine with js being used, but it should deprecate gracefully. As a
previous poster noted, it's where 99% of browser exploits come through.
Ringo
On 10/15/2010 12:07 PM, Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:29:52 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> We are considering making it impossible
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:29:52 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a
> browser supporting Javascript. Yes or no answers would be useful
> (feel free to make further comments). I will post a similar poll to
> FMS. I suggest somebody does Fros
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:29:52 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a
> browser supporting Javascript. Yes or no answers would be useful
> (feel free to make further comments). I will post a similar poll to
> FMS. I suggest somebody does Fros
We are considering making it impossible to use Freenet without a browser
supporting Javascript. Yes or no answers would be useful (feel free to make
further comments). I will post a similar poll to FMS. I suggest somebody does
Frost, I personally don't use Frost.
signature.asc
Description: Thi
32 matches
Mail list logo
