Correct me if I am wrong but I think that this is how it is supposed to
work:
Iterating to connectionlist from the mostLongIdle to the leastLongIdle
connection Fred will try to locate any connections that it can identify
as closed... If one such is found then that one will be closed, tf none
such
--- Edward J. Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 21:18, David Roden wrote:
Niklas Bergh wrote:
Idle connections will be dropped in favor of new
incoming connections
as soon as there are any of those
Isn't an idle connection killed by the IP stack
after
On Thursday 25 September 2003 02:55, Tracy R Reed wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 08:31:55PM -0500, Pascal spake thusly:
Interesting story on Slashdot today. I wonder how hard it would be to
implement in Freenet?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/132216
Not hard at all and
On Thursday 25 September 2003 05:36, Tracy R Reed wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 07:04:39PM -0700, Todd Walton spake thusly:
It'd be brownie points for your business, if you could pull it off.
Problem is it would have to be done anonymously or someone could DoS the
business or personal
On Thursday 25 September 2003 03:06, fish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 08:31:55PM -0500, Pascal wrote:
Interesting story on Slashdot today. I wonder how hard it would be to
implement in Freenet?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/132216
Yes, just what we need, an RBL
On Thursday 25 September 2003 04:27, pineapple wrote:
I don't think blacklists, even
on freenet is the right answer.
Agreed.
The solution to spam
is to move from the current push techonology to pull
technology.
I disagree. Hugely inefficient. Polling is not the way forward, when it can be
- Original Message -
From: Gordan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Discussion of development issues
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Distributed RBL
On Thursday 25 September 2003 04:27, pineapple
wrote:
I don't think blacklists, even
on
Here is what I see happening with idle connections;
The write is succeeding in WSL.
The channel is registered with RSL but nothing gets received.
The attempt gets stopped after ~18s and the next route tried.
Is there any reason for not sending acknowledgment or overload?
(other than being slow or
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 09:43:59AM +0100, Gordan spake thusly:
Agreed. However, a patch to the MTA would be required to give it a different
mechanism for look-ups, e.g. one that looks up from a text file. Either that,
or we would need a DNS proxy that would do that for the MTA, but this would
On Thursday 25 September 2003 11:41, pineapple wrote:
This was getting a bit off topic, but I think the RSA key idea below is
potentially relevant to some future applications in Freenet.
I don't think blacklists, even
on freenet is the right answer.
Agreed.
The solution to spam
On Thursday 25 September 2003 10:01, Tracy R Reed wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 09:43:59AM +0100, Gordan spake thusly:
Agreed. However, a patch to the MTA would be required to give it a
different mechanism for look-ups, e.g. one that looks up from a text
file. Either that, or we would need
Edward J. Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm, ... what does freenet do if a peer connects from a new IP
number while connections are still open to it on the old IP?
I'm pretty sure fred couldn't care less where a connection is coming
from, as long as the crypto authenticates. This is
I was wondering if freenet supports some way to test
the existence of part of a key. Suppose there is a
key on freenet that is
SSK@some_key/colors/blue//blue.txt Now, is there
some way that I could ask freenet if there are any
keys that exist that match SSK@some_key/colors/ and
get a true/false
--- pineapple [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
I was wondering if freenet supports some way to test
the existence of part of a key. Suppose there is a
key on freenet that is
SSK@some_key/colors/blue//blue.txt Now, is there
some way that I could ask freenet if there are any
keys that exist that
pineapple [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was wondering if freenet supports some way to test
the existence of part of a key. Suppose there is a
key on freenet that is
SSK@some_key/colors/blue//blue.txt Now, is there
some way that I could ask freenet if there are any
keys that exist that match
On Thursday 25 September 2003 15:40, pineapple wrote:
I was wondering if freenet supports some way to test
the existence of part of a key. Suppose there is a
key on freenet that is
SSK@some_key/colors/blue//blue.txt Now, is there
some way that I could ask freenet if there are any
keys that
The attached patch makes minor changes to QThreadFactory and
OpenConnectionManager to attempt to make it easier to share
contested locks.
In OCM I wasn't able to do as much as I had hoped, but using
a little bit of logic, I changed the order of if statements
and whatnot to try and shorten the
On Wednesday 24 September 2003 08:31 pm, Pascal wrote:
Interesting story on Slashdot today. I wonder how hard it would be to
implement in Freenet?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/132216
Not only could Freenet provide a solution, but it could be used as a source of
income for
---RBL operator---
Periodically obtain a list of IP addresses to block. Convert each IP to
a 32bit integer and run it through a one-way hashing function saving the
resulting hashes to a file.
Insert a DBR freesite telling people about your RBL and how to use it,
and include your blocklist inside
Ok, I think I've nailed down all of the remaining locking issues which
were plaguing my node. Last time I dumped threads there was only 1 out
of over 200 that was waiting for a monitor. This is a pretty extreme
patch, as it moves KillSurplusConnections to a daemon thread, and
completely redoes
On Thursday 25 September 2003 10:06 am, Edgar Friendly wrote:
Edward J. Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm, ... what does freenet do if a peer connects from a new IP
number while connections are still open to it on the old IP?
I'm pretty sure fred couldn't care less where a connection is
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 10:50:15PM +0100, Jonathan Howard wrote:
Before I start, sorry I don't know the solution.
I've tried to rewrite WSL (my changed, working but incomplete version
attached).
Don't. It was enough of a nightmare the first time. Sun do not follow
their own spec and have
Update of /cvsroot/freenet/freenet/src/freenet/thread
In directory sc8-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv19830
Modified Files:
QThreadFactory.java
Log Message:
Whitespace changes only. Added emacs tabwidth 4 mode line.
Fixed 8 space tabs where necessary.
Index: QThreadFactory.java
Update of /cvsroot/freenet/freenet/src/freenet
In directory sc8-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv22073/src/freenet
Modified Files:
OpenConnectionManager.java
Log Message:
More locking improvements.
-Moved KillSurplusConnections to a thread of it's own, this is in the hopes of
reducing contention
Update of /cvsroot/freenet/freenet/src/freenet/thread
In directory sc8-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv22073/src/freenet/thread
Modified Files:
QThreadFactory.java
Log Message:
More locking improvements.
-Moved KillSurplusConnections to a thread of it's own, this is in the hopes of
reducing
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Some Guy wrote:
This big branch of a thread started because I
suggested we distribute freenet via freenet before we
distribute linux distributions. How do SUSE, Red Hat,
Debian, ect make thier certificates? If it's good
enough for them, wouldn't it be good enough for
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Some Guy wrote:
Dan, I hope this critique is alright. I may not have
100% unstood everything, but it seems like a few
things could be improved.
DPK@keyring/url
Instead of coming up with a new key type and having
even longer URLs, would it be possible to just stick
27 matches
Mail list logo
