On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 03:48:04PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 03:03:07PM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> > It definately makes more sense from a deniablity standpoint to
> > use a dropthrough encryption algorithm on the KSK first.
>
> We are smarter than we look ;-)
>
> > A
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 03:54:08PM -0500, Chris Anderson wrote:
> I think I would combine the notions of Enumeration and Summaries into a
> single index that is updated like an Enumeration but ages like a Summary.
> Lets say a document has keywords mp3, metallica. Updating these keywords
> woul
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 09:20:55PM -0500, Benjamin Coates wrote:
> >From Mr.Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > "AV" == Aaron Voisine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >AV> with user defined keywords, you have to concern yourself with
> >AV> plurals and other forms of root words. If a document
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 04:49:53PM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> > The two methods mentioned in David Wentzlaff's (w/Likuo Lin &
> > Alexander Yip) searching paper at
> >
> > http://cag.lcs.mit.edu/~wentzlaf/classes/6.899/project/public/doc/
> >
> > are Enumeration and Summaries. There is also me
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 03:03:07PM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2000, Adam Langley wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 02:02:31AM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> > > Here's my idea for keyword searches. I volunteer to implement it.
> >
> > That's very nice of you, and please don't be
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 01:24:07PM -0600, Steven Hazel wrote:
> Scott Gregory Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The protocol should completely defeat the Man in the Middle attack
> > as well.
>
> Your protocol doesn't deal with MITM at all. It assumes that Alice
> already knows Bob's pub
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 02:02:31AM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> Here's my idea for keyword searches. I volunteer to implement it.
>
> Each node keeps an index of the ksk's it has in it's data store. When it receives a
>Request.Search
> message with a keyword, it searches the local store for mat
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 05:10:12PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Anyone fancy a challenge?
>
> Check out GCJ at http://sources.redhat.com/java/
>
> It is an extention to GCC (the all-powerful Gnu C Compiler) which allows
> it to compile Java into executables. It is a fussy little git, but if we
>
On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 01:58:35AM -0500, Scott Gregory Miller wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The problem with GC is that it has a tendency to make programmers
> > > > forget that memory management is important. Even with GC, you still
> > > > have to worry about memory leaks and memory usage. With lan
On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 01:18:23AM -0800, Mr.Bad wrote:
> > "TB" == Travis Bemann
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> TB> One possible memory leak is the protected/private memory leak,
> TB> which is a major problem in Java that is somewhat equivalent
> TB> to the classical memory l
>From Mr.Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "AV" == Aaron Voisine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>AV> with user defined keywords, you have to concern yourself with
>AV> plurals and other forms of root words. If a document is listed
>AV> under the keyword "cars" and a user searches for "car",
>From Mr.Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "IC" == Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>IC> The question then is whether we reserve the stable branch for
>IC> 0.3.6.x releases, or for 0.3.x releases, I vote for 0.3.x.
>
>That's what I'm voting for, now, too.
>
>BUT, I'd like to see some o
>From "Mark J. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> A problem with banning date-redirects in KSKs is that it would requrire the
>> SSKs private key to redirect into that SSK. Being able to redirect into
>> someone else's SSK is useful functionality we probably don't want to
forbid.
>
>But why can't y
>From Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Clients have to insert keyword indices for keyword searches to work
>> (doh!). The two methods mentioned in David Wentzlaff's (w/Likuo Lin &
>> Alexander Yip) searching paper at
>>
>> http://cag.lcs.mit.edu/~wentzlaf/classes/6.899/project/public/doc/
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 05:18:37PM -0800, Mr.Bad wrote:
> That's what I'm voting for, now, too.
>
> BUT, I'd like to see some of the newer stuff, like MSKs and date-based
> redirects go into 0.4, and really try to wind 0.3 down to just bug
> fixing and egregious problems like the ref blocking you
> "IC" == Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
IC> The question then is whether we reserve the stable branch for
IC> 0.3.6.x releases, or for 0.3.x releases, I vote for 0.3.x.
That's what I'm voting for, now, too.
BUT, I'd like to see some of the newer stuff, like MSKs and date-ba
On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 01:22:40AM -0800, Mr.Bad wrote:
> I don't think I'll make this change until date-based redirects are in
> the stable branch. And if someone suggests moving them there, I'm
> gonna scream! "stable" shouldn't mean "Everything except what Oskar's
> checking in."
But we should
Anyone fancy a challenge?
Check out GCJ at http://sources.redhat.com/java/
It is an extention to GCC (the all-powerful Gnu C Compiler) which allows
it to compile Java into executables. It is a fussy little git, but if we
could tweak Freenet to compile with GCJ then it would make life much
easie
> "AV" == Aaron Voisine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AV> with user defined keywords, you have to concern yourself with
AV> plurals and other forms of root words. If a document is listed
AV> under the keyword "cars" and a user searches for "car", they
AV> won't find it.
Yeah, b
> "s" == shawnsousa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
s> I've tried using exact key names like
s> "freenet:KSK@software/apps/pagedraw/zip"
s> and it did not work.
OK, another possibility is that your FProxy isn't using the right port
to connect to your Freenet node. Unfortunately, FP
> The two methods mentioned in David Wentzlaff's (w/Likuo Lin &
> Alexander Yip) searching paper at
>
> http://cag.lcs.mit.edu/~wentzlaf/classes/6.899/project/public/doc/
>
> are Enumeration and Summaries. There is also mentioning of
Lightweight
> Indirect Files (LIFs) in that paper, but I think
> "IC" == Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
IC> Everyone's ideas on other ways that we can improve things
IC> during this reorganisation would be more than welcome.
Well, I think that devoting a little time to re-writing the Freenet
specification would probably help out a lot wi
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 03:03:07PM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> It definately makes more sense from a deniablity standpoint to
> use a dropthrough encryption algorithm on the KSK first.
We are smarter than we look ;-)
> As far as being a broadcast, I understand that's bad, but I
> figured with
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 03:48:04PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> describing the content) A, and given two other pairs, B and C
Re-reading this, it isn't clear. B and C are each lists of metadata
pairs.
Ian.
PGP signature
On 31 Dec 2000, Steven Hazel wrote:
> Speaking of problems with 0.3.6, is anyone else finding that inserts
> with HTL=1 don't work? Everything seems to go fine from the client's
> point of view, but the node gives a null pointer exception, and the
> key doesn't end up in the data store.
Yes. I
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 02:26:00PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> So if I had a penny for every time I see someone say "If only Freenet
> was implemented in C++, then I would love to help", I would be, er,
> looking for some way to offload a lot of change.
I think a lot of this can be explained by l
Speaking of problems with 0.3.6, is anyone else finding that inserts
with HTL=1 don't work? Everything seems to go fine from the client's
point of view, but the node gives a null pointer exception, and the
key doesn't end up in the data store.
-S
__
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> A fairly large bytecode savings.
Bah, it's negligible. Maybe on the order of ten bytes per return.
Most of the difference you're seeing there is unused exception
handling code, in case the code inside the synchronized block throws
an exception. I didn't realize it w
Ian,
I had a similar problem, with two reinstalls of the freenet software
.3.6 on windows, closing the console window forcibly seemed to work fine
and cause no ill after effects that I have been able to determine.
Cheers/Dale
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 01:47:19PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> H,
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000, Adam Langley wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 02:02:31AM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> > Here's my idea for keyword searches. I volunteer to implement it.
>
> That's very nice of you, and please don't be put off - but you
> utterly misunderstand much of Freenet.
>
> > Each no
In a message dated 12/31/00 2:16:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> For compilers in which this is not the case, synchronized methods will
> probably result in slightly trimmer code than synchronized blocks for
> methods with multiple return points (a single instruction
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 01:48:04PM -0800, Mr.Bad wrote:
> Do you have an acceptable use policy or Terms of Service for that
> company that states that explicitly? Or were they just kissing your
> ass because you were the coolio peer-to-peer expert visiting for the
> day?
Believe me, they weren't
Ok, time for a general ramble:
So if I had a penny for every time I see someone say "If only Freenet
was implemented in C++, then I would love to help", I would be, er,
looking for some way to offload a lot of change.
Adam has been working on a C++ implementation for some time now, and has
recei
"Mr.Bad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Except doesn't the lock happen -after- the method has started with a
> synchronized block, and -before- the method starts with the
> synchronized method keyword? I'm not sure at all.
I'm pretty sure that, in the code generated by most compilers, a
synchroni
More notes:
- The leak is of closed ConnectionHandler's.
- The leak is through DataReply.ReplySendDone objects that are stored in KeyedMM
which are in turn stored in the MM hashtable. What should be the lifetime of
these objects?
- I've only tested this with FProxy nodes, so it could be so
> "IC" == Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
IC> Well, for what it is worth, in my other life, I have spoken to
IC> some of the top people in a *very* large ISP's broadband
IC> division, and the strong impression I get from them is that if
IC> their users want P2P, they wi
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 03:54:08PM -0500, Chris Anderson wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2000, Adam Langley wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 02:02:31AM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> > > Here's my idea for keyword searches. I volunteer to implement it.
> >
> > That's very nice of you, and please don'
H, this is the same problem that I experienced with one of the
earlier versions of the 0.3.6 Windows release. I am not sure if
Sebastian is able to fix this, but if anyone else thinks that they can
address the problem and provide a fixed release I will upload it.
Cheers,
Ian.
PS. I wish al
> The DMCA provides intimidation, even in foreign countries. Disconnection
> would normally be on grounds of "you weren't allowed to run servers in our
> AUP which you were supposed to have read". ALL UK broadband ISPs, and the
> vast majority across the globe, have AUPs which say "no servers". Th
On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 08:53:25PM -0500, news wrote:
>
> And of course browsers *could* implement this functionality themselves.
It seems risky to make the assumption that all browser code should be
trusted esp. given that we have no ability to audit the code. A piece of
firewalling code would
> "SH" == Steven Hazel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SH> A synchronized method in Java is one that
SH> gets the lock associated with its owner object before it runs,
SH> and releases it before it returns. So there's no difference
SH> between a synchronized method and a method t
> "SGM" == Scott Gregory Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SGM> The second synchronizes the entire method. The internal
SGM> synchronized block lets you lock a specific chunk of code.
SGM> Better, you get to lock on a specific object, so you can
SGM> control access to the ob
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000, Adam Langley wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 02:02:31AM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> > Here's my idea for keyword searches. I volunteer to implement it.
>
> That's very nice of you, and please don't be put off - but you
> utterly misunderstand much of Freenet.
>
> > Each n
Scott Gregory Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The second synchronizes the entire method. The internal
> synchronized block lets you lock a specific chunk of code. Better,
> you get to lock on a specific object, so you can control access to
> the object rather than the method.
Java (stupid
On 31 Dec 2000, Steven Hazel wrote:
> Scott Gregory Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The protocol should completely defeat the Man in the Middle attack
> > as well.
>
> Your protocol doesn't deal with MITM at all. It assumes that Alice
> already knows Bob's public key, and MITM only
The second synchronizes the entire method. The internal synchronized
block lets you lock a specific chunk of code. Better, you get to lock on
a specific object, so you can control access to the object rather than the
method.
On 31 Dec 2000, Mr.Bad wrote:
> Hey, so, just wondering here, for my
"Mr.Bad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey, so, just wondering here, for my own edification: is there an
> advantage to doing this:
>
> public void gar(int foo) {
> synchronized(this) {
> // stuff happens here;
> }
> }
>
> ...rather than t
Scott Gregory Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The protocol should completely defeat the Man in the Middle attack
> as well.
Your protocol doesn't deal with MITM at all. It assumes that Alice
already knows Bob's public key, and MITM only works in cases where
both Alice and Bob fail to actua
Hey, so, just wondering here, for my own edification: is there an
advantage to doing this:
public void gar(int foo) {
synchronized(this) {
// stuff happens here;
}
}
...rather than this:
public synchronized void gar(int foo) {
Okay, I'm a bit late on this post because I changed my mind
in a couple of places on the spec. But here's the P/K key exchange.
The full document (on my not responding machine) contains more detail
including key management and the ARK spec as well, but I can't get that
to you guys until the 8th.
Say, how about including a source tarball with each release? It would
be nice to be able to grab the source for a given release without
having to screw with CVS. It's also pretty much the standard
M.O. outside of the Java contingent.
-S
___
Freenet
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 01:20:49AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Ok, so there has been quite a hoo-hah over this whole issue, allow me to
> summarize, perhaps this can become the basis for something posted on the
> website to address this issue:
>
> Freenet does not, and has never claimed to, make i
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Gianni Johansson wrote:
> On Sunday 31 December 2000 08:43, Mark Roberts wrote:
> > You can now configure a list of allowed hosts for FProxy (or any other
> > servlet). Simply add (for example)
> >
> > services.fproxy.allowedhosts=127.0.0.1, 192.168.1.2
> >
> > to your .f
On Sunday 31 December 2000 08:43, Mark Roberts wrote:
> You can now configure a list of allowed hosts for FProxy (or any other
> servlet). Simply add (for example)
>
> services.fproxy.allowedhosts=127.0.0.1, 192.168.1.2
>
> to your .freenetrc. If you don't, it will assume
>
> services.
You can now configure a list of allowed hosts for FProxy (or any other
servlet). Simply add (for example)
services.fproxy.allowedhosts=127.0.0.1, 192.168.1.2
to your .freenetrc. If you don't, it will assume
services.fproxy.allowedhosts=all
and you don't want that.
Also! Reques
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 12:17:40AM -0500, Travis Bemann wrote:
> > Latex IMHO is better. I personally like to manually write stuff like
> > Latex and HTML. Maybe this is due to my experience with fundamentally
> > broken HTML editors which generated real
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 02:02:31AM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> Here's my idea for keyword searches. I volunteer to implement it.
That's very nice of you, and please don't be put off - but you
utterly misunderstand much of Freenet.
> Each node keeps an index of the ksk's it has in it's data sto
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Benjamin Coates wrote:
> >From "Mark J. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >I assumed you insert them like
> >
> > InsertClient -createUpdate yes KSK@asdf
> >
> >which inserts a redirect like
> >
> > Redirect
> > increment=86400
> > baseline=210100
> >
On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 02:02:31AM -0800, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> Here's my idea for keyword searches. I volunteer to implement it.
No.
> Each node keeps an index of the ksk's it has in it's data store. When it receives a
>Request.Search
> message with a keyword, it searches the local store for
On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 07:31:50PM -0800, Dev Random wrote:
> I took a quick look at the memory situation, and there is a leak there. The
> problem is that the Message class keeps a pointer to the ConnectionHandler.
> Subclasses of Message are kept in the Node in messageMemories.
It has to do th
Here's my idea for keyword searches. I volunteer to implement it.
Each node keeps an index of the ksk's it has in it's data store. When it receives a
Request.Search
message with a keyword, it searches the local store for matching ksk's and sends back
a Reply.Search
message. It then forwards the
61 matches
Mail list logo
