~dr|z3d
@RN_
@StormyCloud
@T3s|4_
@eyedeekay
@orignal
@postman
@zzz
%Liorar
+FreefallHeavens
+GucciferZ
+Leopold
+Xeha
+acetone
+bak83
+cumlord
+hk
+profetikla
+scottpedia
+uop23ip
+weko
An0nm0n
Arch
Dann
DeltaOreo
Irc2PGuest35128
Irc2PGuest61987
Irc2PGuest99418
KiloDelt1
Meow
Nausicaa
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
Over1
T3s|4__
anon
anu
boonst
carried6590
mareki2pb
poriori_
qend-irc2p_
shiver_
simprelay
solidx66_
thetia
u5657
woodwose
obscuratus
What's the rationale for forbidding the use of client tunnels for Database searches?
eyedeekay
TBH with you obscuratus I don't know it offhand
obscuratus
It look's like I2PD made a change recently that eliminates them. I was wondering if we should follow.
obscuratus
You can use exploratory tunnels instead, and then eliminate having to do safety and security checks for Database messages in client tunnels.
obscuratus
Just don't do Database messages in client tunnels. Exploratory only.
obscuratus
But, there's always tradeoffs. :)
eyedeekay
Yeah it's worth analyzing while we have the time
obscuratus
One drawback I see is that users may not realize there are anonymity consequences to changing the number of hops in your exploratory tunnels.
obscuratus
If nothing else, is has me curious to change it to exploratory, and see how many Database related messages I still get down my client tunnels.
obscuratus
I shouldn't get any if I'm not making any DSM queries on my client tunnels.
xeiaso
The more code I read the less I understand.
xeiaso
If you shouldn't be able to deduce that two destinations are hosted on the same router, then why do destination share the exploratory tunnel pool?