~dr|z3d
@RN
@T3s|4
@T3s|4_
@eyedeekay
@orignal
@postman
@zzz
%Liorar
+FreefallHeavens_
+Irc2PGuest53011
+Leopold
+Xeha
+acetone
+ardu
+bak83_
+cumlord
+poriori
+profetikla
+radakayot
+snex
+uop23ip
AHON1
Arch
BravoOreo
Dann
Irc2PGuest3921
Irc2PGuest60478
Irc2PGuest7448
Irc2PGuest92835
Meow
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
dickless
enoxa
hk-
maylay
not_bob_afk
plap
qend-irc2p
shiver_
simprelay
solidx66_
u5657
username
usr001
weko_
woodwose`
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?