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 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 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
>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 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 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
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'
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
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, 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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
