jasen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 08:41:06PM +0200, Christian Biere wrote: > > > > Seems a little heavy handed. I think it's preferable things pull when > > > they see rather than seeking out everything that is out of data. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean. I wasn't saying the peers themselves should > > crawl. A > > dedicated crawler, just like GhostWhiteCrab, would do that and everytime it > > comes > > across some gtk-gnutella peer, > > can it be pushed? Is there some way to disguise the message as a request? > > GTKG_BLACKLIST_VER 9 8 7 6 5 > > leaves would need to set the QRP bits for all 10 digits and the string > GTKGNODES_BLACKLIST_VER to be sure they'd get the request...
This looks indeed like a nice idea. You don't really need the digit stuff. The notification consisting of a timestamp, revision counter, sha1 and a signature would be appended using GGEP. Instead of sending a reply, receivers would request the newest file from this peer then. > how about pull? a magic request that evokes a resopnse from > each gtkg node with the latest version of the list. possibly the > filename (or xml?) in the response could include a signature of the > sha1 to make it harder to forge responses? I think push is a much better idea than pull because the latter is much more difficult to control. -- Christian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ gtk-gnutella-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtk-gnutella-devel
