> > Is it all right if I have 'remote' configuration that only accepts > connections on localhost? It's attractive, because it's an easy way for > the client to find the running node, and I like convenience of use. > Trouble is, (on Unix) it doesn't authenticate the client's user id. I > thought I could get around this by optionally allowing a password, but > that leads on to remote configuration, which we're not going to do (now > that I know). Its not necessary. If you want to find a local running node, just try and connect to it. If you suceed, its there.
> The other option would be to have the client modify .freenetrc directly. > Perhaps then we could have the equivalent of a -HUP signal that works by > connecting to the right port. The advantage is security: unauthorized > users could only make the node reload its configuration, which would have > no exploitable effect. I think I will go with this instead, if that's all > right with you guys. There aren't any reasons to modify the configuration of a running node that outweigh merely changing the file and restarting the node. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20000809/bef64c8f/attachment.pgp>
