On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:38:45PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
<>
> I find that surprising. I am not sure what you mean by "sending about
> 300 pieces of data per hour". My node deals with about 150 to 300
> queries per hour in terms of "incoming queries that are not rejected".
> Or do you onl
In message <20021117224025.GE350 at sporty.spiceworld>, Oskar Sandberg
writes
>On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:38:45PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
><>
>> I find that surprising. I am not sure what you mean by "sending about
>> 300 pieces of data per hour". My node deals with about 150 to 300
>> queri
In message <20021117130307.GA350 at sporty.spiceworld>, Oskar Sandberg
writes
>On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:59:01PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:20:14AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
>> > I think we do a poor job of presenting the requirements of freenet
>> > involvement to
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 04:10:12PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:03:07PM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
< >
> > ...that are not running a NAT or who know how to configure it (which
> > rules out the popular NAT boxes, windows connection sharing etc etc).
> > And just h
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:03:07PM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:59:01PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:20:14AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > > I think we do a poor job of presenting the requirements of freenet
> > > involvement to those who s
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Oskar Sandberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:38:45PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
<>
I find that surprising. I am not sure what you mean by "sending about
300 pieces of data per hour". My node deals with about 150 to 300
queries per hour in
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:38:45PM +, Roger Hayter wrote:
<>
> I find that surprising. I am not sure what you mean by "sending about
> 300 pieces of data per hour". My node deals with about 150 to 300
> queries per hour in terms of "incoming queries that are not rejected".
> Or do you onl
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:59:01PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:20:14AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > I think we do a poor job of presenting the requirements of freenet
> > involvement to those who stumble upon it. To use freenet, a host must
> > be:
> >
> > (a) Accessi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Oskar Sandberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:59:01PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:20:14AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> I think we do a poor job of presenting the requirements of freenet
> involvement to those who stu
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 04:10:12PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:03:07PM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
< >
> > ...that are not running a NAT or who know how to configure it (which
> > rules out the popular NAT boxes, windows connection sharing etc etc).
> > And just h
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:03:07PM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:59:01PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:20:14AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > > I think we do a poor job of presenting the requirements of freenet
> > > involvement to those who s
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:59:01PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:20:14AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > I think we do a poor job of presenting the requirements of freenet
> > involvement to those who stumble upon it. To use freenet, a host must
> > be:
> >
> > (a) Accessi
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 11:16:15PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
<>
> > so that only nodes which have been up for a while (and which are
> > therefore likely to stay up) will really get insinuated into the
> > network. I suspect that having 99% of Windows users unwittingly set up
> > transient
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 03:09:46PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> This may appear trivial, but I suspect it is causing serious damage to
> the network:
>
> The Windows Installer should try to figure out what the node's IP
> address is automatically, *very few* users will know how to figure out
> th
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:20:14AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> I think we do a poor job of presenting the requirements of freenet
> involvement to those who stumble upon it. To use freenet, a host must
> be:
>
> (a) Accessible to connections from the Internet.
Most people on a broadband or mod
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:20:14AM +0100, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> I think we do a poor job of presenting the requirements of freenet
> involvement to those who stumble upon it. To use freenet, a host must
> be:
>
> (a) Accessible to connections from the Internet.
Most people on a broadband or mod
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 11:16:15PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
<>
> > so that only nodes which have been up for a while (and which are
> > therefore likely to stay up) will really get insinuated into the
> > network. I suspect that having 99% of Windows users unwittingly set up
> > transient
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 03:09:46PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> This may appear trivial, but I suspect it is causing serious damage to
> the network:
>
> The Windows Installer should try to figure out what the node's IP
> address is automatically, *very few* users will know how to figure out
> th
This may appear trivial, but I suspect it is causing serious damage to
the network:
The Windows Installer should try to figure out what the node's IP
address is automatically, *very few* users will know how to figure out
their node's IP address, particularly in Windows - meaning that only a
ti
This may appear trivial, but I suspect it is causing serious damage to
the network:
The Windows Installer should try to figure out what the node's IP
address is automatically, *very few* users will know how to figure out
their node's IP address, particularly in Windows - meaning that only a
ti
20 matches
Mail list logo
