"Point it to" ? What option? I've tried your profile with -P and it
doesn't work.
On Friday 07 March 2008 13:46, Martin Nyhus wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 11:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Friday 07 March 2008 02:03, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > > They are numerous techniques to f
"Point it to" ? What option? I've tried your profile with -P and it
doesn't work.
On Friday 07 March 2008 13:46, Martin Nyhus wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 11:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Friday 07 March 2008 02:03, Florent Daignière wrote:
> > > They are numerous techniques to f
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 11:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Friday 07 March 2008 02:03, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > They are numerous techniques to find it out; using the number of
> > simultaneous connections the browser allows is less reliable than using
> > http://ha.ckers.org/weird/CSS-hi
On Friday 07 March 2008 13:46, Martin Nyhus wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 11:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Friday 07 March 2008 02:03, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > > They are numerous techniques to find it out; using the number of
> > > simultaneous connections the browser allows is
On Friday 07 March 2008 02:03, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Colin Davis [2008-03-06 20:52:34]:
>
> > If you want to avoid a distinct fingerprint, you could advocate
> > installing http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/
> > Granted, it's not the kindest software on external servers, but it's in
> > comm
On Friday 07 March 2008 01:38, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
>
> As far as I remember we have always been asking users to change that
> setting... I don't think that you can reliably fingerprint freenet users
> with it. Many websites give it as a "tip" to improve browsing performances;
> there would be
On Thursday 06 March 2008 23:26, Colin Davis wrote:
>
> > Ideally we want an external profile option - something where the settings
are
> > kept outside of the firefox directory, where firefox will always default
to
> > the default profile, without asking the user.
>
> Well.. If you wanted to
On Friday 07 March 2008 13:46, Martin Nyhus wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 11:43 +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > On Friday 07 March 2008 02:03, Florent Daignière wrote:
> > > They are numerous techniques to find it out; using the number of
> > > simultaneous connections the browser allows is
On Friday 07 March 2008 02:03, Florent Daignière wrote:
> * Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-06 20:52:34]:
>
> > If you want to avoid a distinct fingerprint, you could advocate
> > installing http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/
> > Granted, it's not the kindest software on external servers, but
On Friday 07 March 2008 01:38, Florent Daignière wrote:
>
> As far as I remember we have always been asking users to change that
> setting... I don't think that you can reliably fingerprint freenet users
> with it. Many websites give it as a "tip" to improve browsing performances;
> there would be
On Thursday 06 March 2008 23:26, Colin Davis wrote:
>
> > Ideally we want an external profile option - something where the settings
are
> > kept outside of the firefox directory, where firefox will always default
to
> > the default profile, without asking the user.
>
> Well.. If you wanted to
* Colin Davis [2008-03-06 20:52:34]:
> If you want to avoid a distinct fingerprint, you could advocate
> installing http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/
> Granted, it's not the kindest software on external servers, but it's in
> common use, and would set the connections much higher.
>
>>
>> As far as
* Matthew Toseland [2008-03-06 22:39:35]:
> On Thursday 06 March 2008 21:17, Colin Davis wrote:
> >
> > > Not a bad idea, although it's an additional 6MB download, and one more
> thing
> > > to update (does it auto-update?). And it's windows specific: what would
> > > we
> do
> > > on linux
On Thursday 06 March 2008 21:17, Colin Davis wrote:
>
> > Not a bad idea, although it's an additional 6MB download, and one more
thing
> > to update (does it auto-update?). And it's windows specific: what would we
do
> > on linux and OS/X ?
> >
> >
> Portable Firefox is what TorPark uses
On Thursday 06 March 2008 14:51, Michael Rogers wrote:
> On Mar 6 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > True enough, but the alternatives are: - Doing nothing. This sucks. -
> > Telling the user to change the settings manually. But if they do, their
> > browser will be detectable (with a few false po
If you want to avoid a distinct fingerprint, you could advocate
installing http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/
Granted, it's not the kindest software on external servers, but it's in
common use, and would set the connections much higher.
>
> As far as I remember we have always been asking users to chan
On Thursday 06 March 2008 16:32, Colin Davis wrote:
>
> > Both IE and Safari have *MAJOR* problems with Freenet. Safari waits for
all
> > the images to be loaded before even attempting to render the page; IE
> > autodetects HTML even when it is told that a page is plain text (which is
a
> > m
> Ideally we want an external profile option - something where the settings are
> kept outside of the firefox directory, where firefox will always default to
> the default profile, without asking the user.
>
>
Well.. If you wanted to go that way, you could use the -no-remote
option, which a
* Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-06 20:52:34]:
> If you want to avoid a distinct fingerprint, you could advocate
> installing http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/
> Granted, it's not the kindest software on external servers, but it's in
> common use, and would set the connections much higher
If you want to avoid a distinct fingerprint, you could advocate
installing http://fasterfox.mozdev.org/
Granted, it's not the kindest software on external servers, but it's in
common use, and would set the connections much higher.
>
> As far as I remember we have always been asking users to chan
* Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-06 22:39:35]:
> On Thursday 06 March 2008 21:17, Colin Davis wrote:
> >
> > > Not a bad idea, although it's an additional 6MB download, and one more
> thing
> > > to update (does it auto-update?). And it's windows specific: what would
> > > we
>
> Not a bad idea, although it's an additional 6MB download, and one more thing
> to update (does it auto-update?). And it's windows specific: what would we do
> on linux and OS/X ?
>
>
Portable Firefox is what TorPark uses.
There is a version of Portable Firefox for Mac.
http://www.freesm
On Thursday 06 March 2008 13:52, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Simple fix for the safari problem: don't include active links in the
> front page...
>
> This can be done by checking the user agent string.
What is the user agent string for Safari?
>
> Ian.
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Matthew Tosela
> Ideally we want an external profile option - something where the settings are
> kept outside of the firefox directory, where firefox will always default to
> the default profile, without asking the user.
>
>
Well.. If you wanted to go that way, you could use the -no-remote
option, which a
* Ian Clarke [2008-03-06 07:52:42]:
> Simple fix for the safari problem: don't include active links in the
> front page...
>
> This can be done by checking the user agent string.
>
> Ian.
In fact I have reintroduced active-links on the front-page because users
weren't clicking on bookmarks...
On Mar 6 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> True enough, but the alternatives are: - Doing nothing. This sucks. -
> Telling the user to change the settings manually. But if they do, their
> browser will be detectable (with a few false positives) as having been
> modified to work better with Freenet
On Thursday 06 March 2008 21:17, Colin Davis wrote:
>
> > Not a bad idea, although it's an additional 6MB download, and one more
thing
> > to update (does it auto-update?). And it's windows specific: what would we
do
> > on linux and OS/X ?
> >
> >
> Portable Firefox is what TorPark uses
On Thursday 06 March 2008 14:51, Michael Rogers wrote:
> On Mar 6 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > True enough, but the alternatives are: - Doing nothing. This sucks. -
> > Telling the user to change the settings manually. But if they do, their
> > browser will be detectable (with a few false po
Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2008 22:13, Colin Davis wrote:
>
>> As a ignorant user, I think that's as a general principal, Freenet
>> should try to be as browser agnostic as possible..
>>
>> 1) Firefox may not be the dominant browser down the line- Freenet
>> shouldn't co
> Not a bad idea, although it's an additional 6MB download, and one more thing
> to update (does it auto-update?). And it's windows specific: what would we do
> on linux and OS/X ?
>
>
Portable Firefox is what TorPark uses.
There is a version of Portable Firefox for Mac.
http://www.freesm
On Thursday 06 March 2008 11:49, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2008 22:13, Colin Davis wrote:
> > As a ignorant user, I think that's as a general principal, Freenet
> > should try to be as browser agnostic as possible..
> >
> > 1) Firefox may not be the dominant browser down the
On Thursday 06 March 2008 16:32, Colin Davis wrote:
>
> > Both IE and Safari have *MAJOR* problems with Freenet. Safari waits for
all
> > the images to be loaded before even attempting to render the page; IE
> > autodetects HTML even when it is told that a page is plain text (which is
a
> > m
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 22:13, Colin Davis wrote:
> As a ignorant user, I think that's as a general principal, Freenet
> should try to be as browser agnostic as possible..
>
> 1) Firefox may not be the dominant browser down the line- Freenet
> shouldn't constantly chase the tale of different
> Both IE and Safari have *MAJOR* problems with Freenet. Safari waits for all
> the images to be loaded before even attempting to render the page; IE
> autodetects HTML even when it is told that a page is plain text (which is a
> major security breach as an attacker can then send unfiltered HTM
On Mar 6, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Florent Daigni?re
> wrote:
>> * Ian Clarke [2008-03-06 07:52:42]:
>>
>>
>>> Simple fix for the safari problem: don't include active links in the
>>> front page...
>>>
>>> This can be done by checking the user agent
On Mar 6, 2008, at 8:06 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Florent Daignière
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-06 07:52:42]:
Simple fix for the safari problem: don't include active links in the
front page...
This can be done by checking
> Both IE and Safari have *MAJOR* problems with Freenet. Safari waits for all
> the images to be loaded before even attempting to render the page; IE
> autodetects HTML even when it is told that a page is plain text (which is a
> major security breach as an attacker can then send unfiltered HTM
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Florent Daigni?re
wrote:
> * Ian Clarke [2008-03-06 07:52:42]:
>
>
> > Simple fix for the safari problem: don't include active links in the
> > front page...
> >
> > This can be done by checking the user agent string.
> >
> > Ian.
>
> In fact I have reintrod
Simple fix for the safari problem: don't include active links in the
front page...
This can be done by checking the user agent string.
Ian.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2008 22:13, Colin Davis wrote:
> > As a ignorant user, I think that's as a
On Thursday 06 March 2008 13:52, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Simple fix for the safari problem: don't include active links in the
> front page...
>
> This can be done by checking the user agent string.
What is the user agent string for Safari?
>
> Ian.
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Matthew Tosela
On Mar 6 2008, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> True enough, but the alternatives are: - Doing nothing. This sucks. -
> Telling the user to change the settings manually. But if they do, their
> browser will be detectable (with a few false positives) as having been
> modified to work better with Freenet
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Florent Daignière
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-06 07:52:42]:
>
>
> > Simple fix for the safari problem: don't include active links in the
> > front page...
> >
> > This can be done by checking the user agent string.
> >
* Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-06 07:52:42]:
> Simple fix for the safari problem: don't include active links in the
> front page...
>
> This can be done by checking the user agent string.
>
> Ian.
In fact I have reintroduced active-links on the front-page because users
weren't clicki
Simple fix for the safari problem: don't include active links in the
front page...
This can be done by checking the user agent string.
Ian.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:49 AM, Matthew Toseland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2008 22:13, Colin Davis wrote:
> > As a ignorant user,
Matthew Toseland schrieb:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2008 22:13, Colin Davis wrote:
>
>> As a ignorant user, I think that's as a general principal, Freenet
>> should try to be as browser agnostic as possible..
>>
>> 1) Firefox may not be the dominant browser down the line- Freenet
>> shouldn't co
On Thursday 06 March 2008 11:49, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2008 22:13, Colin Davis wrote:
> > As a ignorant user, I think that's as a general principal, Freenet
> > should try to be as browser agnostic as possible..
> >
> > 1) Firefox may not be the dominant browser down the
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 22:13, Colin Davis wrote:
> As a ignorant user, I think that's as a general principal, Freenet
> should try to be as browser agnostic as possible..
>
> 1) Firefox may not be the dominant browser down the line- Freenet
> shouldn't constantly chase the tale of different
* Colin Davis [2008-03-05 17:13:22]:
> As a ignorant user, I think that's as a general principal, Freenet
> should try to be as browser agnostic as possible..
>
> 1) Firefox may not be the dominant browser down the line- Freenet
> shouldn't constantly chase the tale of different browsers.
> 2)
Firefox is able to create profiles, and run two of them at once (at least my
iceweasel is). I propose that the browse freenet script creates a new firefox
profile called Freeet (if it doesn't already exist), creates a user.js
telling it to use a lot of connections, turn off javascript, etc (if
* Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-05 17:13:22]:
> As a ignorant user, I think that's as a general principal, Freenet
> should try to be as browser agnostic as possible..
>
> 1) Firefox may not be the dominant browser down the line- Freenet
> shouldn't constantly chase the tale of diffe
As a ignorant user, I think that's as a general principal, Freenet
should try to be as browser agnostic as possible..
1) Firefox may not be the dominant browser down the line- Freenet
shouldn't constantly chase the tale of different browsers.
2) Most users don't use Firefox currently. Most gene
As a ignorant user, I think that's as a general principal, Freenet
should try to be as browser agnostic as possible..
1) Firefox may not be the dominant browser down the line- Freenet
shouldn't constantly chase the tale of different browsers.
2) Most users don't use Firefox currently. Most gene
Firefox is able to create profiles, and run two of them at once (at least my
iceweasel is). I propose that the browse freenet script creates a new firefox
profile called Freeet (if it doesn't already exist), creates a user.js
telling it to use a lot of connections, turn off javascript, etc (if
53 matches
Mail list logo
