On Friday 21 April 2006 23:53, NextGen$ wrote: > * Michael Rogers <m.rogers at cs.ucl.ac.uk> [2006-04-21 21:43:37]: > > Thomas King wrote: > > UPnP, on the other hand, sounds useful - LimeWire contains a Java > > implementation so that might be a good starting point. > > > > Cheers, > > Michael > > Azureus too (azureus.sourceforge.net). I've started doing something with it > but gave up when I saw that recent windows versions are becoming paranoid > to all Up&p stuffs. Thanks for the hint! I didn't not know that, because I do not use Azureus.
> > IMO UP&P was a fashion : it was hype when manufacturers were enabling it by > default but now most of them are doing the opposite. It's disabled by > default. I do not agree with you. As far as I know most (consumer) DSL-router vendors still enable UPnP by default. For instance, the DLink DSL-G664T is shipped with enabled UPnP and I'm quit sure my Linksys WRT54 was also shipped with enabled UPnP. > > Moreover, the concept of letting the application deal with NAT/firewalling > rules isn't "good" nor secure imho. Yes, that is more or less true. However, for most computer users it is even better if the application handles the NAT/firewall because otherwise they cannot use the application. These people do often not understand the theory behind the technical concepts and are not able to change the configuration of their NAT by hand. Greetings, Thomas > > NextGen$ > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 481 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060422/3b2890e2/attachment.pgp>
