If you are behind a firewall, an address on the web is no good without the proxy address.
A newsgroup name is no good without a Usenet server. Sending an email is no good without an SMTP server. Even an IP address is no good without a gateway somewhere. Do web URLs contain proxy addresses? noop. Do news URLs contain server addresses? noop. Do mailto URLs contain mailserver addresses? noop. Do IP addresses contain the address of the gateway? noop. Why is this? Because the web proxy, the news server, the mailserver, and the gateway are properties of your system, not of the data/peer. Same thing with which Freenet node you use, it is a system dependent, not data dependent, setting. Freenet capable browsers should have a setting for the Freenet node to use, just like they have settings for web proxies, Usenet servers, and mail servers today. The URL should contain information about the data, not about your setup. On Mon, 08 May 2000, Lawrence W. Leung wrote: > > Stinky. > > > > Freenet URLs should not include the server. The server is a > > setting. Setting it in URL will confuse users, and makes as much > > sense as having your Web proxy in the URL. > > > > The URL is supposed to locate a piece of data. It is supposed to > > decribe locater necessary to find that data. The node used to enter > > Freenet has NOTHING to do with this. It doesn't even have to be an > > Internet host. > > Freenet isn't any good if you dont have an entry point. Your key is > basically useless unless the client can find a server that is close enough > to the data to retrieve it. Encoding a node's information in there helps > the client find data. The only difference between this and > http is that ours is a suggestion, not a demand. Most of the time users > wont make suggestions. Sometimes they will have to in order to get what > they want. > > Hopefully this will eventually become obsolete. But for now I think there > needs to be a mechanism to suggest where to enter freenet. > > Perhaps it's not the cleanest thing you can do, but I think it's an ok > compromise. I'd rather abuse the URL a bit than have a user not find > his/her data when it exists on the network. > > I suspect most users wont ever see this type of a URL after freenet takes > off (big if here) and this format will become obsolete and this wont be an > issue. > > Thoughts? > -Larry > > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev -- Oskar Sandberg md98-osa at nada.kth.se #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/) _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
