Re: [Wfw-discuss] Hi people. Alive?

[Eric R. <er...@Ca...>]

Hey, I'm thrilled to see some discussion finally getting started around here.

> > Not at all. It will be very nice.
>Really. What is to stop it being spoofed massively? Every script kiddie from
>here to china will insert his home page as www.slashdot.org

I think this is an important problem, and it probably needs to be addressed 
socially as well as technically. I originally proposed having some kind of 
feedback system operate on top of normal Freenet operation. So, for 
instance, if I get a bogus page in my browser, I need to be able to tell 
the WFW system that it's no good. That information needs to propagate back 
along the chain of servers that served this document. They need to just 
purge it from their cache. I figure that we could just watch for people to 
hit "reload" (or shift-reload or whatever) and take that as a negative 
feedback event. It's much better to purge too often than not often enough.

Also, I think that having a system where users enter the system by being 
"sponsored" through another computer (like the early days of USENET) would 
help too. Computers would have to "earn" their way into the center of the 
network by not sending out bogus responses, and then would be quickly 
pushed out again if they started spamming.

Does that make any sense?


> >
> > > Does this project require features only in freenet after 0.n, n > 4 ?
> >
> > Not at all. It could be implemented today.
>How? The original freshmeat editorial said basically:
>In parallel,
>1. Do the HTTP request
>2. Request the URL as a key from Freenet.
>If it comes in through #1, insert it into freenet.
>Is this still the proposal? You know it won't work. So some details, please?
>If you just insert http://www.blah.com/ into Freenet as an SVK, it will not
>be updatable. And it is infinitely spoofable. You can get around the first
>problem with pseudo-updating (cost quite large). You can't get around the
>second problem, in general, although you could define a metadata format to
>encapsulate a URL, insert the file separately as a CHK (to avoid
>duplication), and return an SVK for the inserted file (metadata), which
>would be a pointer to an archived web site. This won't be transparent
>though.

Why would that not be transparent?


> >
> > > Does this project want help?
> >
> > Yes! It could be implemented pretty easily as a proxy. I've been thinking
> > lately that you could implement a generalized proxy that would work with
> > and peer-to-peer network, or a combination of them. That would be way
> > cool.
>It should definitely be a proxy. However squid redirectors are not the way
>to go IMHO, we want to send the HTTP request *in parallel* to the freenet
>request. But it's not that hard to write a simple threaded proxy.

I think that is correct. It would be nice if it could integrate into one or 
more browsers without users needing to mess with their proxy settings, though.

Eric