@RN
@RN_
@eyedeekay
@orignal
@postman
@zzz
%Liorar
%snex
+BeepyBee
+FreefallHeavens
+Onn4l7h
+Onn4|7h
+Over
+bak83
+poriori
+profetikla
+qend-irc2p
+r00tobo
+uop23ip
+xHarr
Arch
BubbRubb1
Danny
DeltaOreo
Irc2PGuest39811
Irc2PGuest46844
Irc2PGuest6537
Irc2PGuest89876
Irc2PGuest90909
Meow
Stormycloud_
T3s|4
T3s|4_
ac9f_
acetone_
anontor
cumlord
floatyfloatilla
halloy13412
mahlay
makoto
nZDoYBkF_
nilbog
not_bob_afk
ntty
onon_
r00tobo[2]
shiver_
simprelay
solidx66
thetia
u5657
zer0bitz_
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?