On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 08:33:05PM -0800, Dale Babiy wrote:
> > I agree in the short run, but in the long run, I think browsers should
> > evolve to support freenet: the same way they have evolved to support
> > things like HTTP, FTP, proxies, gopher, wais, HTML, etc.
>
> *grins* well here I run into a design philosophy problem. I generally buy
> the unix, 'do one thing and do it well' ethos. For example, I use my
> browser for http. I have another application to do my FTP activities,
> etc.
The browser's really for HTML activities moreso than HTTP activities..
good design really would be to split the browser from the transport layer.
> The problem is that existing web browsers are _not_ designed to meet
> Freenet's base design goal, to provide a secure anonymous mechanism for
> transfering data.
<snip>
> the users permission. It would require a major deep design change to make
> any of the mainstream browsers into a device that I would be happy
> acting as an unmediated user agent for my browsing of the Freenet.
heh, no shit.. existing browsers mostly suck anyway. someone, maybe even
me, will build a good one for people like us who care about freenet:
support.
> > In the short term, perhaps a useful tool would be to have a proxy
> > running on localhost that was switchable by the user (think system
> > tray icon for winbloze) into freenet or non-freenet mode. In freenet
> > mode it blocks all non-freenet protocols, and otherwise it passes
> > through directly to the 'net or the user's normal web proxy.
>
> Yep, and this is the direction I would like to see Fred/Fproxy head in.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I'd love for Mozilla to parse Freenet:// natively,
> but I'd hate to see the option to use an Fproxy mediator to be
> lost. Security <=> Convience is as always a continium and I think the
> user should be given a choice of where to place themselves on that
> continium. For 99% of the public, ya punching a freenet:// address into
> IE10.9e would probably be suffient for their needs. For those running the
> Martian underground smuggling out opressed human slaves, something closer
> to the secure end of the scale might be more desirable.
Agreed. We just need to be very loud about the fact that unless you
specifically install some kind of anonymity protection, be it external
to the browser or built-in, you are at risk.
> Would you trust your life to the fact that your web browser doesn't leak
> any info when you type freenet:KSK@resistance/mars/contacts.html in the
> address bar?
I guess so .. I mean, I've already eschewed the indispensable precaution
of an aluminum foil hat.. the damn key can't be retrieved though..
you think they're blocking it?
--
// Tavin Cole
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
