On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 06:58:28AM -0500, Tavin Cole wrote: > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 12:39:19PM +0100, Nico Galoppo wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am working on a thesis around P2P anonimity. We're investigating the > > possibility of improving the anonimity characteristics of Freenet in > > particular. > > > > What are the opinions of the freenet developers on a pipenet-like > > 'frontend' to Freenet? Could it be a plausible extension to the basic > > Freenet, much in the same way as a 'mixnet' frontend has been proposed > > before. What could be the added benefits in providing a higher degree of > > anonimity, in particular for document inserters and retrievers? > > > > AnonNet is such a pipenet implementation, what we would like to do is > > integrate into the Freenet core. Could the existing Freenet PKI be used. > > What is its status anyway in the CVS code? > > > > All suggestions, remarks and questions are welcome, > > Can you explain more about pipenets and AnonNet in particular (maybe > some URLs)? I'm guessing it works at the transport layer, so in Fred > you would write an AnonNet transport (see freenet.transport.* -- right > now the only transports are TCP and SSL). How do you use SSL in freenet ATM? > > I'm not sure what you mean by the "status" of the PKI CVS code. It's > certainly in use. > > -tc > > > _______________________________________________ > freenet-tech mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
-- The road to Tycho is paved with good intentions
msg00555/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
