On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:05:54PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 07/09/2011 10:13 AM, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
> > Well, in the GnuPG scenario I quickly explained, handling of "disruptive
> > behaviors", being abuses of a community policy or spam would be handled
> > collectively
On 07/09/2011 10:13 AM, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
> Well, in the GnuPG scenario I quickly explained, handling of "disruptive
> behaviors", being abuses of a community policy or spam would be handled
> collectively by the community I guess.
Yes; it's the details of the mechanism for doing
Hi,
Sorry for the lag, a bit busy over here...
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 03:52:05PM -0400, i...@churchkey.org wrote:
>
>
> On 07/04/2011 01:02 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > On 07/02/2011 02:24 PM, i...@churchkey.org wrote:
> >> I think the best way to do this is through something like a dyna
On 2011-07-07 22:29, Ted Smith wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 16:14 +0200, Lukas Nagl wrote:
Hi,
although the topic is raised in various subjects, I think that there is
a need for a specific place to talk about how different freedomboxes
will be able to establish communication with each other.
T
On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 16:14 +0200, Lukas Nagl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> although the topic is raised in various subjects, I think that there is
> a need for a specific place to talk about how different freedomboxes
> will be able to establish communication with each other.
>
> This question doesn't conc
On Jul 7, 2011, at 6:43 PM, i...@churchkey.org wrote:
On 07/07/2011 11:39 AM, Ted Smith wrote:
As such, I don't see why a fully distributed system, where each node
detects spam and does not relay it, wouldn't suffice in any case.
There
is no reason for the power of deciding which messages ar
On 07/07/2011 12:43 PM, i...@churchkey.org wrote:
> If the Dynamic DNS based
> public directory I proposed is particularly troubling to you, perhaps we
> could focus on how that is different from DNS itself, the gpg
> keyservers
OpenPGP keyservers have no authority in and of themselves; the
inform
On 07/07/2011 11:39 AM, Ted Smith wrote:
> As such, I don't see why a fully distributed system, where each node
> detects spam and does not relay it, wouldn't suffice in any case. There
> is no reason for the power of deciding which messages are malicious and
> which aren't to be concentrated in
On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 15:52 -0400, i...@churchkey.org wrote:
> I think it is important to consider that people want a mechanism for
> enforcing community standards of SPAM and abuse. Everything from forums
> to online dating sites rely on having a mechanism for filtering out
> communications and me
On 07/04/2011 01:02 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 07/02/2011 02:24 PM, i...@churchkey.org wrote:
>> I think the best way to do this is through something like a dynamicDNS
>> centralized service.
>
> Can you explain why a centralized service is the right way to go here?
It may not be, but
On 07/02/2011 02:24 PM, i...@churchkey.org wrote:
> I think the best way to do this is through something like a dynamicDNS
> centralized service.
Can you explain why a centralized service is the right way to go here?
We have what seems to be a reasonable sketch of a proposal on the table
(from be
Every freedombox has some unique identifier or even a profile whitch
could be so " annonymous" as the user want,
it could be like a Vcard, avatar/profilepict , with public keys,
tags, information about the user what he "likes" or is "interested"
in. Remember it should be social !! ;)
Thi
On 07/02/2011 11:22 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Lukas Nagl wrote:
>
>>
>> There are various ways to do this. Some centralized, some
>> decentralized, some require people meeting each other and some don't.
>>
>> What possibilities do you see, and what do you propose?
>
On Sat, Jul 02, 2011 at 05:22:34PM +0200, Marc Manthey wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Lukas Nagl wrote:
>
> >
> >There are various ways to do this. Some centralized, some
> >decentralized, some require people meeting each other and some
> >don't.
> >
> >What possibilities do you see, and
On Jul 2, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Lukas Nagl wrote:
There are various ways to do this. Some centralized, some
decentralized, some require people meeting each other and some don't.
What possibilities do you see, and what do you propose?
an idea.
Every freedombox has some unique identifier or
Hi,
although the topic is raised in various subjects, I think that there is
a need for a specific place to talk about how different freedomboxes
will be able to establish communication with each other.
This question doesn't concern itself with the contents of communication,
but rather with h
16 matches
Mail list logo
