Again, let me be simple and blunt. The masses can't hack alphabet soup (should change within a few years if the Doonesbury cartoon holds any truth).
I've taken a stand because I value the concept of Freenet - it's the most desperately under-installed thing on the Internet. Freenet still has a reputation for being technically very difficult. There should be over a million running Freenet nodes, covering every nation. My intention is to contribute to making that a reality. From: "Chris Anderson" <[email protected]> > it is cool to think of .free as a censorship free domain... it's power is > in it's simplicity (but if it exists at all, it should use ssks). The first prototype of FreeWeb did just that. However, it depends on one or more people running a sort of pseudo-DNS registry, which collects [ssk-pubkey,domain-name] tuples - via in-Freenet keyindexes, or out-of-band - and securely publishes them in-freenet The problem here is that in-band harvesting of such mappings is inherently vulnerable to attack, and out-of-band harvesting is inherently vulnerable due to the presence of a target IP. If I do go back to this scheme, there's no way in hell I intend to be the only person running such a map publishing service - I don't fancy being held accountable for content I haven't created, due to the legally-deemed power of censorship that running a registry would give me (a power I *do not want*). All this aside, I still like the idea of a '.free' underground domain, using the familiar web paradigm. It's tempting to strip all that functionality out of FreeWeb, to appease Ian's concerns, and publish the FwProxy as a completely separate program, not associated with FreeWeb. (Ian, would you be happy with that?) David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Anderson" <[email protected]> To: <devl at freenetproject.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 15:50 Subject: Re: [freenet-devl] Freeweb comments > On Tue, 29 May 2001, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 03:15:16PM +1200, David McNab wrote: > > > How about I create a separate build of FreeWeb which excludes all the > > > fwproxy/DNS/KSK functionality, and publish it under a different name, such > > > as 'WinSite', or 'Winsert'.? > > > > Well, I would prefer that you agree with me and drop the www.xxx.free > > functionality altogether. As I mentioned before, where protocols are > > concerned, sometimes it is better to deny people options (as when M$ > > tries to add Windows specific functionality to Java - they argue that > > they are just giving people options, however the more people that take > > advantage of those options, the worse it is for the Java platform as a > > whole). > > > > If fwproxy were able to map arbitrary DNS names to freenet keys, someone > could define a configuration to totally circumvent a particular site > blocking ISP. That may be more useful than a .free domain, although I do > it is cool to think of .free as a censorship free domain... it's power is > in it's simplicity (but if it exists at all, it should use ssks). > > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl > _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
