Paul Derbyshire wrote:
Other http:// URLs are automatically converted by fproxy to point to a
warning page, so inline images are not displayed.
So freesites can't have images? Or can, if the image URLs point back
They can, if you don't use absolute paths and thus stay within Freenet.
Paul Derbyshire wrote:
What about inline images?
If tested this on a test freesite, and the scr for an inline image on
the WWW gets changed to
/__CHECKED_HTTP__www.urlofimage.com/directory/image.gif
On 15 Mar 2004 at 14:10, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
Yes, because you could harvest the visitors' IP
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 11:42:36AM +, Michal Charemza wrote:
Hi, I have two questions:
1. All the sites I've viewed on freenet, don't have a full doctype tag,
they either have none, or just
!DOCTYPE, instead of
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC blah blah
The test site I inserted into my
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 12:42:34PM +, Michal Charemza wrote:
Paul Derbyshire wrote:
What about inline images?
If tested this on a test freesite, and the scr for an inline image on
the WWW gets changed to
/__CHECKED_HTTP__www.urlofimage.com/directory/image.gif
On 15 Mar 2004 at
On 16 Mar 2004 at 15:29, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
Paul Derbyshire wrote:
What about inline images?
Other http:// URLs are automatically converted by fproxy to point to a
warning page, so inline images are not displayed.
So freesites can't have images? Or can, if the image URLs point
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:40:17 -0500
Paul Derbyshire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So freesites can't have images? Or can, if the image URLs point back
to fproxy rather than a regular web server?
Right. The best way to place an image on a freesite is:
IMG SRC=/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-s
Michal Charemza wrote:
!DOCTYPE, instead of
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC blah blah
Is this due to fproxy's anonymity filter? If so, why does it
remove/shorten them? Also, I've noticed that the default gateway page
does have a full doctype tag, why, if
Yes, because you could harvest the visitors'
!DOCTYPE, instead of
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC blah blah
The test site I inserted into my own node did have a full doctype tag
when I wrote it, but it didn't when I retrieved it, it just had !DOCTYPE.
Is this due to fproxy's anonymity filter? If so, why does it
remove/shorten them? Also,
On 15 Mar 2004 at 14:10, Mika Hirvonen wrote:
Michal Charemza wrote:
!DOCTYPE, instead of
!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC blah blah
Is this due to fproxy's anonymity filter? If so, why does it
remove/shorten them? Also, I've noticed that the default gateway page
does have a full doctype
