On Thursday 23 December 2010 19:32:31 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 December 2010 00:42:53 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Friday 17 December 2010 15:50:11 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 07 December 2010 17:21:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > > On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22
On Thursday 23 December 2010 19:32:31 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 December 2010 00:42:53 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Friday 17 December 2010 15:50:11 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 07 December 2010 17:21:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > > On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22
On Tuesday 21 December 2010 00:42:53 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 17 December 2010 15:50:11 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 December 2010 17:21:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22 Klaus Koch wrote:
> > > > > > It is a hard problem. But our tradition
On Tuesday 21 December 2010 00:42:53 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 17 December 2010 15:50:11 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 December 2010 17:21:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22 Klaus Koch wrote:
> > > > > > It is a hard problem. But our tradition
On Friday 17 December 2010 15:50:11 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 December 2010 17:21:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22 Klaus Koch wrote:
> > > > > It is a hard problem. But our traditional approach hasn't been
> > > > > terribly
> > > > > honest IMHO.
>
On Sunday 19 December 2010 15:41:04 Lennart Ackermans wrote:
> The current texts are indeed very easy to understand, but not very clear to
> me. Most importantly, I don't get why darknet mode improves security.
>
> I'm assuming that security in this case means anonymity. But when you add
> friends
On Friday 17 December 2010 15:50:11 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 December 2010 17:21:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22 Klaus Koch wrote:
> > > > > It is a hard problem. But our traditional approach hasn't been
> > > > > terribly
> > > > > honest IMHO.
>
On Sunday 19 December 2010 15:41:04 Lennart Ackermans wrote:
> The current texts are indeed very easy to understand, but not very clear to
> me. Most importantly, I don't get why darknet mode improves security.
>
> I'm assuming that security in this case means anonymity. But when you add
> friends
The current texts are indeed very easy to understand, but not very clear to
me. Most importantly, I don't get why darknet mode improves security.
I'm assuming that security in this case means anonymity. But when you add
friends, they can connect your freenet identity to your real life identity.
Th
The current texts are indeed very easy to understand, but not very clear to
me. Most importantly, I don't get why darknet mode improves security.
I'm assuming that security in this case means anonymity. But when you add
friends, they can connect your freenet identity to your real life identity.
Th
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 17:21:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22 Klaus Koch wrote:
> > > > It is a hard problem. But our traditional approach hasn't been terribly
> > > > honest IMHO.
> >
> > We were talking on #freenet on how to explain new users in a few words
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 17:21:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22 Klaus Koch wrote:
> > > > It is a hard problem. But our traditional approach hasn't been terribly
> > > > honest IMHO.
> >
> > We were talking on #freenet on how to explain new users in a few words
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 01:08:51 David ?Bombe? Roden wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 December 2010 00:44:51 Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>
> > But as you said previously no one uses darknet. How about a semi open net
> > that uses a WOT attribute to decide what nodes to trust?
>
> That would allow a direc
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 00:44:51 Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> But as you said previously no one uses darknet. How about a semi open net
> that uses a WOT attribute to decide what nodes to trust?
That would allow a direct connection between a WoT identity and an IP address?
unless I understood you
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 01:08:51 David ‘Bombe’ Roden wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 December 2010 00:44:51 Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>
> > But as you said previously no one uses darknet. How about a semi open net
> > that uses a WOT attribute to decide what nodes to trust?
>
> That would allow a direc
On Wednesday 08 December 2010 00:44:51 Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> But as you said previously no one uses darknet. How about a semi open net
> that uses a WOT attribute to decide what nodes to trust?
That would allow a direct connection between a WoT identity and an IP address—
unless I understood you
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 12:21:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22 Klaus Koch wrote:
> > > > It is a hard problem. But our traditional approach hasn't been terribly
> > > > honest IMHO.
> >
> > We were talking on #freenet on how to explain new users in a few words
On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22 Klaus Koch wrote:
> > > It is a hard problem. But our traditional approach hasn't been terribly
> > > honest IMHO.
>
> We were talking on #freenet on how to explain new users in a few words
> (installer?) what freenet's security is all about and how to "warn" t
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 12:21:07 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22 Klaus Koch wrote:
> > > > It is a hard problem. But our traditional approach hasn't been terribly
> > > > honest IMHO.
> >
> > We were talking on #freenet on how to explain new users in a few words
On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22 Klaus Koch wrote:
> > > It is a hard problem. But our traditional approach hasn't been terribly
> > > honest IMHO.
>
> We were talking on #freenet on how to explain new users in a few words
> (installer?) what freenet's security is all about and how to "warn" t
20 matches
Mail list logo
