On 21 Nov 2002, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> I'm still worried about this idea of "propogation" being a dangerous
> one. I understand that requests succeed more often for content that
> has been requested a lot, but there's got to be something we can do to
> make normal insertion effective enough for
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:33:45PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> I think we should get rid of the transient setting, the reason
> being that it is relatively straightforward for a node to guess
> whether it is likely to be transient or not.
>
> I would suggest that all nodes remain in "transient" m
On November 23, 2002 03:33 pm, Ian Clarke wrote:
> I think we should get rid of the transient setting, the reason
> being that it is relatively straightforward for a node to guess
> whether it is likely to be transient or not.
>
> I would suggest that all nodes remain in "transient" mode
> automati
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:33:45PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> I think we should get rid of the transient setting, the reason
> being that it is relatively straightforward for a node to guess
> whether it is likely to be transient or not.
>
> I would suggest that all nodes remain in "transient" m
yes yes and hell yes! ^_^ this makes a lot of sense
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Ian Clarke wrote:
> I think we should get rid of the transient setting, the reason
> being that it is relatively straightforward for a node to guess
> whether it is likely to be transient or not.
>
> I would suggest tha
On Saturday 23 November 2002 02:08, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> Just testing on Windoze and the Distribution servlet doesn't seem to be
>> starting, or at least it isn't on port 8891 as it is expected to be.
> Fixed. I think. Snapshots regenerated.
Hmm... CVS from some minutes ago still doesn't gi
On November 23, 2002 03:33 pm, Ian Clarke wrote:
> I think we should get rid of the transient setting, the reason
> being that it is relatively straightforward for a node to guess
> whether it is likely to be transient or not.
>
> I would suggest that all nodes remain in "transient" mode
> automati
On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 12:33:45PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> I think we should get rid of the transient setting, the reason
> being that it is relatively straightforward for a node to guess
> whether it is likely to be transient or not.
Ugh.
>
> I would suggest that all nodes remain in "transie
Ian Clarke writes:
> I think we should get rid of the transient setting, the reason
> being that it is relatively straightforward for a node to guess
> whether it is likely to be transient or not.
>
> I would suggest that all nodes remain in "transient" mode
> automatically until 6 hours afte
Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we should get rid of the transient setting, the reason
> being that it is relatively straightforward for a node to guess
> whether it is likely to be transient or not.
>
> I would suggest that all nodes remain in "transient" mode
> automatically
I think we should get rid of the transient setting, the reason
being that it is relatively straightforward for a node to guess
whether it is likely to be transient or not.
I would suggest that all nodes remain in "transient" mode
automatically until 6 hours after they come on-line. Nodes could
zi
Personal Homepage http://locut.us/
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attach
I just saw this as the "earlier dated version" link on the DNF page in
Fproxy:
http://127.0.0.1:/SSK@jiczXivfYmk-PSX8Cd5rO6KREC0PAgM/AcidFone//?date=20021122-12:09:40
--
Ian Clarkeian@[freenetproject.org|locut.us|cematics.com]
Latest Project h
L:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021123/e50c9886/attachment.pgp>
fish writes:
> On 21 Nov 2002, Edgar Friendly wrote:
>
> > I'm still worried about this idea of "propogation" being a dangerous
> > one. I understand that requests succeed more often for content that
> > has been requested a lot, but there's got to be something we can do to
> > make normal inse
fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 21 Nov 2002, Edgar Friendly wrote:
>
> > I'm still worried about this idea of "propogation" being a dangerous
> > one. I understand that requests succeed more often for content that
> > has been requested a lot, but there's got to be something we can do to
>
(I should disclaim this with a statement that the network seems in better
health than it was a week ago - i can actully insert/retrieve a 12kbps
stream again, and 16 from a "good" node ^_^. yay. happy happy fish
fish.
just so no-one thinks that I'm flaming ^_^)
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, fish wrote:
On 21 Nov 2002, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> I'm still worried about this idea of "propogation" being a dangerous
> one. I understand that requests succeed more often for content that
> has been requested a lot, but there's got to be something we can do to
> make normal insertion effective enough for
to 11/1/03
http://freenetproject.org/
-- 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/20021123/05cea7b6/attachment.pgp>
: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021123/9c08f249/attachment.pgp>
9 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021123/b8422715/attachment.pgp>
r.
Employed full time by Freenet Project Inc. from 11/9/02 to 11/1/03
http://freenetproject.org/
-- 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/20021123/ceba2329/attachment.pgp>
22 matches
Mail list logo
