On Wednesday 01 November 2006 21:04, toad wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 09:32:47AM +1300, Phillip Hutchings wrote: > > On 11/2/06, Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> wrote: > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > >Hash: SHA1 > > > > > >I don't want to encourage people to do this and then assume that they > > >can include href="USK at ..." type hyperlinks in web pages. Any link to > > >content on Freenet should be prefixed with http://127.0.0.1:8888/ - > > >this may not be pretty but it works without any special browser > > >plugins or configuration, and that is far more important. > > > > > >Ian. > > > > Is the node smart enough to change 127.0.0.1 to whatever interface > > you're accessing it from? Some people access it across a LAN... > > Generally the node doesn't need to know. >
Surely the point is that if this URL is coming from a web page then it won't have been near the node, and so the node couldn't change it if it wanted to. > Yes, but currently if you paste a key (e.g. from Frost, or an email) > into the browser it feeds it into Google. This is a bad thing! Such is the price we pay for using an existing application that's not designed with anonymity in mind. The only thing I can suggest is a shipping a Firefox plugin that plonks a little 'lock to Freenet' button on the toolbar that makes sure your browser can only access Freenet content and not send any request out to the Big Bad World. It would presumably make the browser inerpret anything you put into the address bar as a Freenet key too. Does that suggest that our users should really be using Firefox as opposed to any other (non IE) browser? Perhaps. Are we willing to live with it? Is it worth the time to develop and maintain it? Dave
