On Saturday 02 August 2008 08:10, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2008-08-02 01:48:29]:
>
> > On Friday 01 August 2008 20:40, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2008-08-01 19:31:35]:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday 22 July 2008 17:52, nextgens at freenetproject.org wrote:
> > > > > Author: nextgens
> > > > > Date: 2008-07-22 16:52:25 +0000 (Tue, 22 Jul 2008)
> > > > > New Revision: 21320
> > > > >
> > > > > Modified:
> > > > > trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/NodeDispatcher.java
> > > > > Log:
> > > > > Implement the FOAF-attack-mitigation hack
> > > >
> > > > IMHO we should accept the new location but ignore the FOAF locations,
no?
> > > > >
> > >
> > > It can't happen from a genuine node; imho it makes sense to prune that
> > > node out of routing altogether (and that's what happens as a side effect
> > > of not accepting any location from it).
> > >
> > No, we'd keep the previous loc, wouldn't we?
>
> Sure, but if it wasn't connected previously it would be -1 which is
> invalid...
>
> Anyway, what do we want to do here? What about disconnecting from the
> peer altogether?
>
forceDisconnect(false) and tell the user. No?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080802/cefe49e7/attachment.pgp>
