On Wed, 10 May 2006 19:31:56 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:09:10PM +0300, Jusa Saari wrote: >> On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:12:47 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> >> > When did you try it last? :) >> >> Well... It has been a while. Maybe I'll give it a try again, when and if >> 0.7 non-darknet version becomes available. > > Interesting (and common) attitude... connecting to a bunch of strangers > through opennet is better than connecting to a bunch of strangers through > darknet how?
Three reasons: 1) I don't have to hunt for more node references after the initial connect. Since no node will stay online forever, a darknet nodes connectivity will deteriorate with time unless its given more noderefs regularly. This is an extra hassle, likely resulting in most people using some kind of automated means (possibly a Frost board with noderefs, or something like that), making the "dark" part of darknet completely untrue. 2) Related to the above, if I take my node offline for any reason (as I do every night - this computer can't run 24/7, it's in my bedroom and makes a noise like a jet engine), it won't result in significant reduction in the connectiveness of other nodes. A darknet node will likely have very few connections, since getting them is such a hassle, while a non-darknet will have dozens, if not hundreds, of nodes to connect to, and is constantly getting more. 3) If it turns out that one of the people I'm connected to is a pedophile and gets busted, and I was connected via darknet to him, it will cast shadows of doubt on me. After all, I chose to connect to this particular person; even if it can't be proven that I'm a pedophile myself, I'm still associated with one. On the other hand, if our nodes simply established connection automatically without any interaction on my part, as they do in a lightnet, I'm not associated with a pedophile - it is simple to show that the whole thing was completely automatic, and didn't require me to have ever even heard of this person, much less interacted with him in any way. This last point is especially important: a darknet can *increase* your risks. In a lightnet, you are simply connecting to a *network*, and while your node can be sending IP packets to a pedophile or a terrorist or a general scumbag, it has nothing to do with *you* - just a conincidence, you aren't associated with these people anymore than if your IP packets had happened to be routed through a router operated by Mafia. On the other hand, in a darknet, you are connecting to *specific* *people* **you** *selected*. You are supposed to connect to people you know and trust; you trusted a pedophile/terrorist/scumbag - so maybe you are one too ? You routed your IP packets through a machine operated by Mafia *on purpose*; maybe you didn't know that it was operated by the Mafia, or maybe you did. It is a lot harder to claim that you knew nothing about the illegal activities of someone you deliberately associated with, than some random stranger you happened to pass on the proverbial street. And while associating with scum may not make you guilty in a court of law, the court of public opinion is quite a different matter. >> > Frost is primarily about boards, and it can't be easily gatewayed to >> > regular email because it doesn't have the same features. Something >> > that >> >> Actually, it does. Assuming email-over-Freenet is going to use the >> insert/request model (and not some kind of direct messaging), then it's >> going to require message senders inserting messages with guessable keys >> and message receivers polling for them. Basically, any >> email-over-Freenet application is going to be, in essence, a message >> board. > > Fundamentally yes. That doesn't mean it uses the same data formats and has > the same features. It doesn't for example mean it uses one queue per > board. What essential feature neccessiates these different data formats ? What does e-mail do that Frost doesn't do ? What justifies the effort of writing and debugging this new freemail application, and the inconvenience of having two incompatible messaging systems ? And don't say "1-on-1 messaging", since that is simply not possible on Freenet. >> > could be would be useful; we could gateway the lists, for instance, >> > and save people the considerable trouble of setting up 2-way mixmaster >> > accounts. It's also been specifically asked for by rguerra, who has >> > considerable experience and contacts amongst people working in dark >> > places. >> >> >> >> Or, if you want to use an email program for communication, add POP >> >> protocol to Frost. It is open source, after all. >> > >> > Frost doesn't do the same thing as email. >> >> Yes, it does. It lets me send a message to another human being over >> Freenet. That is what email does. > > Frost is many:many and doesn't support email headers. Because of the > latter it can't easily be gatewayed to real email. Because of the former > it is inefficient for 1:1 use. All communication over Freenet is 1:many or many:many. There is no keytype that would let many people to insert messages for you but let none but you to read them. As for e-mail headers, they are simply lines of text inserted at the begin of the message. Apart from address (To: field), there's no special support required from the transmission layer. >> Simply setup a board to act as your inbox, tell it to people along with >> your public (Frost) key, and you're done. >> >> You aren't going to get a direct 1-to-1 mapping with regular Internet >> e-mail with Freenet, since there's no way to send messages directly from >> one host to another. > > I don't see why we can't have a 1:1 mapping. It may not be very efficient > and elegant, but it's been done before. In 0.8 we will use various > mechanisms to make it more efficient, but IMHO these should probably be > passive requests rather than 1:1 connections. BECAUSE, there is no keytype that supports that. And it's simply pointless to waste effort to try to make messaging over Freenet look just like e-mail. People don't want to send e-mails, they want to send text (and occasional attachments). Sure, you *can* make it look to the user that he's using e-mail. However, it's a wasted effort for appearances sake. Also, since we are talking about Freenet, the whole thing is going to be very untrustworthy, with messages getting lost on the way. Hmm... That may justify writing a separate application: reliable (retry sending until confirmation is received or timeout is encountered) messaging. >> Currently, the only way to deliver >> a message from one user to another is to insert the message under a >> guessable key (which, for people to insert anything to it, must be >> known); Frost does this. Frost also lets you crypt the messages so that >> only the intended recipient will be able to read them. Any and all >> possible Freemail implementations *must* do both things to be usefull, >> so not using Frost would be a waste of resources. > > See the arguments advanced in this and the other email.
