On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:16:37PM -0700, coderman wrote:
> "Mark J. Roberts" wrote:
> >
> > If the descriptions are actually descriptive, my evil nodes will not be
> > able to imitate them very well. So the user could plausibly pick out the
> > bogus replies and Unrequest them. But I suspect that users often will
> > simply use the filename as the description, or some simple permutation
> > of it. And that can be faked.
>
> It is also interesting to consider what happens when a large number of hits are
>found.
> The user would have to actually retrieve the files in order to determine if they are
>valid
> or not. So, you may spam a large number of queries, and much of it will go
>unnoticed in
> such a situation, and this would further increase the apparent validity of the
>spammed
> results.
>
> At least, that is my understanding.
I have no idea how the unrequest actually works. I'm under the
impression that it works per-node and not per-reply, i.e., "The node who
sent this response is evil! Punish it!"
But how that node is identified I do not know. In particular, I think my
evil node could attribute the evil search results to an arbitrary node.
Maybe it's per-reference after all--"You shouldn't ever reply to
searches about 'democracy' again, because you really fucked up this
time!" But somehow this feels wrong...
--
"...it must be held that third-party electronic monitoring, subject
only to the self-restraint of law enforcement officials, has no place
in our society..." Mark Roberts | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
