On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 01:57:55PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > > 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. > > <snip> > > 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. > > his/her data when it exists on the network. > >
Ack. I just woke up from a nightmare, one in which a URI that had my node in it was being passed around all over the place. If a URI is necessary, then free:key will work just fine. If folks insist on accessing Freenet from browsers, a browser can launch a helper app (node) when it encounters such a URI. I believe you can even do this from IE, with a bit of registry editing. Putting node addresses in a Freenet URI is a *bad* idea. I can see now that I'm going to have to figure out ways to keep my node from talking to anything but other nodes. :-( David Schutt _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
