On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 11:07:51PM -0500, Brandon wrote: > There is no expense in requesting an additional file if the files are > requested simultaneously, at least no expense worth mentioning.
There is if one of them has been dropped - and how will you know what metadata file to request before you have requested the first file? Also, what is to stop client writers just embedding the metadata in the document themselves? That is what i'd do - and that doesn't solve the problem you outline. > The first problem doesn't seem like a real practical problem (who's going > to use this attack and what purpose will it serve?) but still seems pretty > dumb and should probably be avoided. You are right, it is dumb, and so I don't even see why you mentioned it, it doesn't serve your argument. > The second problem will come up a lot when we start attaching DMI to files > since even a difference in capitalization or punctuation of the name of > the author or title will cause the network to store an additional copy of > the file. This will in effect cause popular files inserted by different > people to split the popularity vote that should really be going to a
