Hi I've been thinking about ways to get human-friendly, yet secure, URIs under freenet.
(KSKs are nice, just a shame they're so easily subverted). My thoughts so far are: 1) Users would trust one or more 'namesites'. For instance, if I have confidence in Alice's 'namesite', I would stick in my ~/.freenames file an entry: alice freenet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/alice/0 2) If I want to browse a freesite, with the human-friendly URL of http://falun-gong.free, my client would look in ~/.freenames, see the entry for 'alice', then try alice's uri for 'falun-gong'. 3) If the 'alice' namesite has an entry for 'falun-gong', then the URI: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/alice/0/falun-gong should return the physical URI of the 'falun-gong' site I'm looking for, which might be: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/falun-gong/0 4) Alice might trust other namesites, so her namesite would have a file '[EMAIL PROTECTED]/alice/0/.forward which lists URIs for other namesites which Alice considers trustworthy. So if Alice didn't have an entry for 'falun-gong', maybe one of the namesites listed in her .forward file might. So, how would this get used in practice? One way I've thought of is to implement a basic name server for local use only. This name server would have a very simple socket interface, supporting commands like 'lookup' (look up a name), 'list' (list the trusted namesites), 'add' (add a namesite), 'remove' (remove a namesite). Then the last step is to write an http proxy over the top of fproxy which simply follows the above method to translate human-readable URIs such as 'http://falun-gong.free' to 'http://127.0.0.1:8888/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/falun-gong/0/index.html' As for the service side, running a namesite would be very easy. It would just be a freesite where the mapping from (say) foo.free is implemented as a relative path /foo, which contains just the real freenet URI '[EMAIL PROTECTED]/foo/0'. An alternative, which would reduce the number of files on the freesite, would be to list everything in one file, maybe '/.bulk'. But before I launch into something like this, the question to ask is whether others might see value in having human-readable yet secure and (relatively) trustworthy URIs. For me, I would see value, because I'm getting a bit tired of the current URIs being so long that I can't see the file extension in my browser address or status bars. Anyway, your thoughts? -- Kind regards David _______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
