r 1-6?
> b) Which files are stored in which directory of 2,4?
>
> Thanks,
> Philipp
-- 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/20070818/c7080a47/attachment.pgp>
; successes and failures to design the next system.
The worry is that we need to be able to poll only those users likely to make
posts to our specific subscribed boards.
-- 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/20070818/42eaaee2/attachment.pgp>
--
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/20070818/56bbba77/attachment.pgp>
available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20070818/35c14404/attachment.pgp>
On Thursday 16 August 2007 12:49, Philipp Riegger wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 10:46 +0300, Philipp Riegger wrote:
> > That would be one possible solution, yes. On my system,
> > chk-${port}.{cache,store} are also quite big and in could move them and
> > put a symlink there. But i think changing
On Friday 17 August 2007 07:19, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Tuesday 14 August 2007 02:20, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> Do you suggest that each established user create *cash puzzles, and
> new posters choose one or many of these puzzles to solve in order to
> ge
On Thursday 16 August 2007 00:22, Michael Rogers wrote:
> I agree, fragmentation is a very important issue. Hopefully there will
> be enough newbies (who have to disable filtering and trawl through the
> spam until they've established themselves in the web of trust) to knit
> the community back tog
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 03:23, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> Lastly, the idea of people having to read the boards for a while before
> they post seems good (make sure they don't just barge into the
> community, but understand a bit more what's acceptable). Unlike
> freenet/fproxy, where the goal is to
