On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:05:43PM -0500, Brandon wrote:
> Yes, but I already have such an e-mail client, which is why I'm asking how
> this is useful.

firstly, your email client is just one example, not everyone might wish
to use it (some might desire a think-cash based solution), and email is
just one example. Another would be a client which supported submission
to an in-freenet key index.  Conventionally, such a client couldn't
terminate before it had found the end of the stack which might take
several minutes - this would be intolerable to many users and thus this
kind of solution would be essential.

> But the index API doesn't necessarily need to be non-blocking as the
> Python e-mail daemon could be run in the background and connected to by a
> short-lived client.

Wouldn't it be better to have just one daemon, which runs as part of the
node, rather than creating a new daemon for every service you want to
offer?

> In the case of an e-mail daemon, this approach doesn't make all that much
> sense. If you were going to send e-mail via a short-lived program such as
> a command line client then it would be good to get rid of the daemon and
> just have the client and the node. However, the preferred way to send
> e-mail is via an SMTP daemon so that it can integrate with current mail
> readers. This must run as a daemon anyway because you don't want to have
> to start it up every time you want to send e-mail. Since it's running as a
> daemon you don't gain anything with this new API.

Personally I think that email over Freenet without an anti-flooding
mechanism such as think cash, is extremly risky.  We have already seen
submission mechanisms being flooded (see Snarfoo), and this situation
would only get worse.  As far as I can see, it would be difficult to
write a think cash client which used smtp.

> So basically this proposal is useful when you *don't* want to run a
> daemon, and e-mail is a bad example since you do. So can you give an
> example of an application for which you wouldn't run a daemon but would
> use this functionality?

Reply via email to