On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 09:43:43PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 03:18:12AM -0500, Brandon wrote: > > > > > If we really want to protect node operators (which is not, by the way, > > > a goal of the Freenet Project), > > > > Whoa there, mister (bad), it's one of *my* goals. We are doing Silent Bob > > in 0.4, at least. > > This is semantics. It is not a goal of the Freenet project to permit > HTTP access to the system, yet we include FProxy because it is useful. > If we didn't include FProxy, Freenet would not fail to meet its goals. > Similarily, if we did not protect node operators, Freenet would not fail > to meet its goals. This, however, is no reason not to try to do it > provided that it doesn't adversely affect our actual goals. > > > Sure, I'd love more steganography but there's only so > > much time in the day. If there are some steganographers about then I'll > > certainly support their efforts. > > Ye gods! Don't you think Freenet is slow enough as it is without > introducing steganography?! How much would silent Bob HTTP encapsulation slow down an average connection? Presumably it would have no impact after connecting to the node...? HTTPS encapsulation? > > Ian.
-- The road to Tycho is paved with good intentions _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
