Any thoughts? The original poster thinks this is an attack, and NAT problems seem unlikely given that the packets on the different port are all at the same time. Also for the same reason it is unlikely that it is a harvesting attempt - they would be spread out over a long period. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Toni Bergman <toni.berg...@gmail.com> Subject: [freenet-support] Part 2: Probably a bug: please report: 1 peers forcibly disconnected due to not acknowledging packets. Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:12:05 +0300 Size: 136589 URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20090829/5e484c11/attachment.mht> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20090829/5e484c11/attachment.pgp>
