On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:33:15PM -0400, Juiceman wrote:
> If you really feel the need to do something like this:
> Why not just support blacklisting of CHK's that are known objectionable
> material. If the node comes across a request for one of these, it will pass
> it along but refuse to cache it thereby making people feel all warm and
> fuzzy about not helping the c.p. or whatever spread.
Because this would be a token gesture. It would not be useful, it would
tend to undermine routing, requests would be redirected by per node
failure tables, there would need to be constant maintenance of
blacklists rather than occasional verification of objectionable content,
and above all it would not seriously discourage the poster. What I
propose is a means by which a darknet community can produce a deterrent
(which is not to blow the anonymity of the original poster - except to
his friends - but to sever connections with him), and when a poster is
an entire subnetwork, it provides a means for the network to fork.
Speaking of fork, please release a working freenet (open model or open/darknet) before you go off coding this.
--
"I might not like what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it!"
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
