Firstly, why did you reply to THIS mail? It seems what you are talking about has nothing to do with what I wrote below (TCP stuff)... so please reply where it belongs, or independently if it's something new.
Second, I don't understand what you are trying to say... You DON'T want a short path with some data? Why not? As for following the path backwards... umm who can do that? Maybe a dictator of a country can just barge in and take control of all the involved machines and do the trace... Well I don't think I have a clue as of what you were talking about... so please explain again! :) /Gabriel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 2:47 PM Subject: Re: [Tech] freenet not suited for sharing large data > I more or less figured that Freenet should implement a HTL maximum and minimum to provide more annonimity. Such as, I don't want to download from 2 hops away with some materials, but something more along the lines of 10 < Hops < 25. That way we could get past all the fears of the previous posts. Then maybe some guestimating if you pass by a machine that contains the information, you could follow the branch to those downwind to them. > > Anyhow, just a passing thought from work. > > >Ok that "example" I had with TCP.. just forget about it, it was a bad > >example. > > > >/Gabriel > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
