On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 08:02:14AM +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:In message <001001c28b86$af21c660$4e0d4818@ip78>, Robert Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >I tried adding publicNode and I couldn't see any difference. The node is >running under windows XP. Both computers have valid internet addresses. >Both computers are on the same subnet. The node is configured to allow all >IP addresses mainport access, however my firewall only permits the two >computers to access fproxy or fcp. However, with the latest release it is >alot better, but you still sometimes you have to wait up to a minute for >fproxy to respond. Localhost always seems fast, so why not have an option >that allows all FCP and FProxy access to be treated like localhost. Right >now, FCP and FProxy access from non-local host addresses ARE treated >differently. Just give us the option to turn that behaviour off. I've >asked this a couple times before and I was told to use software like squid, >putty, etc. But I want to use mozilla and setting up squid on win xp is >non >trivial, not to mention my poor server is overloaded right now. >Can I add my support to this? The present system of by-passing bandwidth limits for private sub-nets may even be a disadvantage for people serving a very large LAN, and doesn't help those of us using routeable IPs. My Freenet server is not going to thank me for letting it off running X-windows and then making it run squid.Then they can go fix it. It's fine for 99.999999% of all users, including most unix users. The people it isn't fine for are probably running it at work and risking their careers on it.
I can't work out exact probabilities without making an unnecessary effort, but the two people in this thread (who would very much like a configuration item to add routeable IPs to the list of bandwidth limit exemptions) plus your estimate that we constitute 0.000001% of Freenet users suggest your median estimate of the number of Freenet nodes is around 200 million: a lot more if you believe there may be more of us!
Seriously, I don't claim it is a high priority but if it could reasonably easily be done it would be very handy. Or you could hard code the host that sent this email, if that would be easier. [1]
>----- Original Message ----- >From: "Matthew Toseland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:49 PM >Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Keep up the good work, but ... > >>Great job, freenet is getting much better. However, fproxy access for non >localhost addresses is still slow if you are running a busy permanent node. >Non-localhost addresses? LAN addresses, you mean, e.g. >10.x.x.x >192.168.x.x >etc? >Or do you mean you are trying to access the node over the internet? In >this case, I recommend you use an SSL wrapper program, you get >encryption and the node sees local connections. Oh, and set >publicNode=true in your freenet.conf, if other people can access it, >this disables some potentially damaging pages. >
[1] This is probably a joke. -- Roger Hayter _______________________________________________ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
