> When freenet URLs start to find there way into web pages, if a node address > appear in URLs on the web, will stupid courts hold those nodes responsible > for the data refered to by the key in the URL, with no understanding of how > freenet works?
Yea, already thought about that one. I'll make it perfectly clear that including specific nodes in hypertext is *forbidden* in the protocol. How do we enforce this? We'll basically have two ways of interpreting a URL depending on how it's entered. All URLs in hypertext go through a special function that disallows specific node references. So assuming that a good >90% of people don't hack up the webbrowser to get around this (there's no good reason for it) this will be a strong incentive to make it comply with our URL rules. -Larry > > degs > > > How bout this idea: > > > We take the server in the URL as a *suggestion*. > > > The priority of who to contact first for the data is as follows: > > > 1. Localhost > > > 2. entries in ~/.freenet > > > 3. entries in /etc/freenet.conf or appropriate master file > > > 4. Suggested server in URL. > > > > > > Fair enough? > > _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
