-
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/20080429/5219e896/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/20080429/7d530b63/attachment.pgp>
settings".
David
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080429/b7bd6044/attachment.pgp>
, there is a suggestion on FMS to use
> stun.callwithus.com.
No way we use the stun server of some anonymous from fms.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
U
crubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080429/f93afb91/attachment.pgp>
On Monday 28 April 2008 19:39, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Exactly how common are broadband connections with less than 256kbps
upstream?
> > Anyone got one?
>
> I assume I'm not the only Freenet user who shares a 256kbps link with
> several flatmates...
In which case
Ratchet has had somewhat better performance on his 12K/sec node if he reduces
the max opennet peers to 10-12. This produces a higher payload percentage and
similar output bandwidth, so less bandwidth is wasted on queries we don't
handle.
This is to be expected with the current load management
On Monday 28 April 2008 16:55:45 Matthew Toseland wrote:
- There will be 3 modes for the config page: simple, advanced and
developer.
I would have gone with two modes renamed to most common options (showing of
course only the most commonly used options) and all options. I don't think
It is our intention to release 0.7.0-final late next week.
We (myself and ian) would really appreciate any testing you can do. Please
test, test, test, let us know of any serious issues, ideally report them in
the bug tracker (https://bugs.freenetproject.org), or via FMS if you must
remain
On Tuesday 29 April 2008 19:16, David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
On Monday 28 April 2008 16:55:45 Matthew Toseland wrote:
- There will be 3 modes for the config page: simple, advanced and
developer.
I would have gone with two modes renamed to most common options (showing
of
course only the
On Tuesday 29 April 2008 23:33:59 Matthew Toseland wrote:
IMHO there is a difference between a geek who knows what an IP address is,
and an experienced freenet user.
Duh, nobody doubts that. But most of the people using freenet will probably
think why should I only look at the medium settings
On Tuesday 29 April 2008 23:37, David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
On Tuesday 29 April 2008 23:33:59 Matthew Toseland wrote:
IMHO there is a difference between a geek who knows what an IP address is,
and an experienced freenet user.
Duh, nobody doubts that. But most of the people using freenet
12 matches
Mail list logo
