On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 02:55:55PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2005, at 14:08, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 12:58:44PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >>On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative i
On 20 Sep 2005, at 14:08, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 12:58:44PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
>> On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is
"clusters of isolated dark nodes", which is worse?
>>>
>>>
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 12:58:44PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >>Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is
> >>"clusters of isolated dark nodes", which is worse?
> >>
> >
> >There would be no real reason to grow the darkn
On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:12:40AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
>> On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:56, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Which reduces "globally scalable darknet" to "clusters of dark nodes
>>> hanging off the opennet".
>>>
>>
>> Well, if t
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:12:40AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:56, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >
> >Which reduces "globally scalable darknet" to "clusters of dark nodes
> >hanging off the opennet".
>
> Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is
> "cluste
On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:56, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:55:12AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
>> On 19 Sep 2005, at 16:54, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>
>>> It is IMHO strategically vital that we can test the network as a
>>> pure
>>> darknet. We will need an opennet as well, bec
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:55:12AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2005, at 16:54, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >It is IMHO strategically vital that we can test the network as a pure
> >darknet. We will need an opennet as well, because we need to have
> >something for people to download from free
On 19 Sep 2005, at 16:54, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> It is IMHO strategically vital that we can test the network as a pure
> darknet. We will need an opennet as well, because we need to have
> something for people to download from freenetproject.org.
I see no reason for there to be a separate openn
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 02:55:55PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2005, at 14:08, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 12:58:44PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >>On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative i
On 20 Sep 2005, at 14:08, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 12:58:44PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is
"clusters of isolated dark nodes", which is worse?
There would be n
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 12:58:44PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >>Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is
> >>"clusters of isolated dark nodes", which is worse?
> >>
> >
> >There would be no real reason to grow the darkn
On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:12:40AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:56, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Which reduces "globally scalable darknet" to "clusters of dark nodes
hanging off the opennet".
Well, if that would truly be the
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:12:40AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:56, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >
> >Which reduces "globally scalable darknet" to "clusters of dark nodes
> >hanging off the opennet".
>
> Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is
> "cluste
On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:56, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:55:12AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
On 19 Sep 2005, at 16:54, Matthew Toseland wrote:
It is IMHO strategically vital that we can test the network as a
pure
darknet. We will need an opennet as well, because we need to
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:55:12AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2005, at 16:54, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >It is IMHO strategically vital that we can test the network as a pure
> >darknet. We will need an opennet as well, because we need to have
> >something for people to download from free
On 19 Sep 2005, at 16:54, Matthew Toseland wrote:
It is IMHO strategically vital that we can test the network as a pure
darknet. We will need an opennet as well, because we need to have
something for people to download from freenetproject.org.
I see no reason for there to be a separate opennet
-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:52:44PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
>> Matthew Toseland a ?crit :
>>
>> >On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wr
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 07:37:27PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> Matthew Toseland a ?crit :
>
> >My understanding is that the french crypto regulations were abandoned
> >some time ago.
>
> That law is just a project (no decree yet). For the moment, we're still
> limited to 128b.
That's bizarre
Matthew Toseland a ?crit :
>My understanding is that the french crypto regulations were abandoned
>some time ago.
>
>
That law is just a project (no decree yet). For the moment, we're still
limited to 128b.
>Make your own darknet. :)
>Then come to Bristol, take me out for a pizza, and I'll con
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:52:44PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> Matthew Toseland a ?crit :
>
> >On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> >
> >As far as the above goes, please read the responses to the other post.
>
> I did. So you confirm my understanding ? 99% of cur
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 07:37:27PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> Matthew Toseland a ?crit :
>
> >My understanding is that the french crypto regulations were abandoned
> >some time ago.
>
> That law is just a project (no decree yet). For the moment, we're still
> limited to 128b.
That's bizarre
-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext
In <20050919155428.GD18971 at amphibian.dyndns.org> Matthew Toseland wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:52:44PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
>> Matthew Toseland a ?crit :
>>
>> >On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien C
Matthew Toseland a écrit :
>My understanding is that the french crypto regulations were abandoned
>some time ago.
>
>
That law is just a project (no decree yet). For the moment, we're still
limited to 128b.
>Make your own darknet. :)
>Then come to Bristol, take me out for a pizza, and I'll con
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 07:52:44PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> Matthew Toseland a ?crit :
>
> >On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> >
> >As far as the above goes, please read the responses to the other post.
>
> I did. So you confirm my understanding ? 99% of cur
Matthew Toseland a ?crit :
>On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
>
>
>>Following the post named "Hypothetical question", I'd like to expose you
>>a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong.
>>
>>We all know each others only by Freenet and it is sa
Following the post named "Hypothetical question", I'd like to expose you
a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong.
We all know each others only by Freenet and it is said that it isn't
enough to form a darknet together, correct ? So we'll have to stay on
the opennet which is
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> Following the post named "Hypothetical question", I'd like to expose you
> a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong.
>
> We all know each others only by Freenet and it is said that it isn't
> enough to form a
Matthew Toseland a écrit :
>On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
>
>
>>Following the post named "Hypothetical question", I'd like to expose you
>>a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong.
>>
>>We all know each others only by Freenet and it is sa
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 06:36:53PM +0200, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> Following the post named "Hypothetical question", I'd like to expose you
> a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong.
>
> We all know each others only by Freenet and it is said that it isn't
> enough to form a
Following the post named "Hypothetical question", I'd like to expose you
a practical case : the French community. Stop me when I'm wrong.
We all know each others only by Freenet and it is said that it isn't
enough to form a darknet together, correct ? So we'll have to stay on
the opennet which is
30 matches
Mail list logo
