Squiker
Apr 17 2004, 23:24
I do not know if this is a bug or not but after updating my v1j version of Emuleplus to v1k i get an abnormal amount of band users in my logs.
Especialy the following ban text:
"seems to be an aggressive client and is banned from the uploadqueue (hash stealer)"
I have seen jusers band by my emule before, but the amount of users beeing band by me is nor very large.. Is this a bug???
My system details:
P3 933, Win2000 Pro, SP1 and SP2 installed, Zonealarm firwall, Norton antivirus 2003 running.
This system is only runnig Emule noting else...
Greets,
Squiker
reanimated838uk
Apr 17 2004, 23:31
What client? LH clients are banned now.
Squiker
Apr 18 2004, 11:41
Seems to be a lot of LH (lh.2y.net]) cliens alright.. Good to know that these are band now, but it is realy killing my logs.. I get clients baned like every 2 to 4 sec.
Also my donloads ar right down the tubes after upgarding to v1k, are the excessive client banning and the poor download related? Or dit i just do something sutpid when upgarding to v1k?
I used v1h, v1i and v1J without many problems and although I did experianced more banning with v1j also, it has never been this excessive.
reanimated838uk
Apr 18 2004, 12:23
you might wanna stick with 1j. 1k might be banning a lot of LH users who upload quite a bit to you.

no no, reanimated

u can still download from banned clients! but they wont get an uploadslot from us.
reanimated838uk
Apr 18 2004, 12:43
ahhh yeah yeah......doh....
lol.
forgot about the banning system.
DonGato
Apr 18 2004, 14:21
| QUOTE (Squiker @ Apr 18 2004, 08:41) |
Seems to be a lot of LH (lh.2y.net]) cliens alright.. Good to know that these are band now, but it is realy killing my logs.. I get clients baned like every 2 to 4 sec.
Also my donloads ar right down the tubes after upgarding to v1k, are the excessive client banning and the poor download related? Or dit i just do something sutpid when upgarding to v1k?
I used v1h, v1i and v1J without many problems and although I did experianced more banning with v1j also, it has never been this excessive. |
You can disable the log, you know? (countermeasures)
You can also disable sending messages to them to save some bandwidth.
Squiker
Apr 18 2004, 21:23
I have the Countermeasures enabled, and have the sending messages disabled.
I will try disabling the caoutermeasures, but are they not there for a reason?
As it is I am already uploading more than I download, I do not want to serve the leachers to, right? (If you donload you must upload, is what I think)
By the way my downloads are still terbly slow even with enough sources available.....
what DonGata sais is that you can disable the log for countermeasures not to disable countermeasures
Squiker
Apr 18 2004, 21:47
Ok.. I have the "do not log countermeasures" item enabled now also.
Will wait and see
Squiker
May 15 2004, 10:17
Well I have the log counter measures off for quite some time now and I still having problems. The only thing that realy helped me was turning down te upload speed. (The speed settings I had worked fine with v1J).
Also I seem to get banned from a great lot of servers now quite often too.
So anyone of you guys have any more ideas for me to try?
Thanks
mkbrown32
May 20 2004, 09:07
| QUOTE (reanimated838uk @ Apr 17 2004, 23:31) |
| What client? LH clients are banned now. |
What is the definition of an "aggressive client" or "hash stealer" ?
I did not find the description in the FAQ to be helpful.
Is this simply a dispute between the developers of the 2 programs ?
mkbrown32
DonGato
May 20 2004, 10:32
aggressive client request from us frequently not observing the limit of 3 times in less than 9 minutes. A bad network connection or a wrongly configured/coded client can do this also.
hash stealer sends to us different hashes from the same IP in the same session. He is most probably an impersonator trying to get a better position in our queue.
The only "dispute" (and I wouldn't dare to say that) is the LH issue. Those clients weren't following the GPL and as no source code was released and their behavior didn't seem to be fair they can also be called leechers.
moosetea
May 20 2004, 10:52
| QUOTE (DonGato @ May 20 2004, 10:32) |
aggressive client request from us frequently not observing the limit of 3 times in less than 9 minutes. A bad network connection or a wrongly configured/coded client can do this also.
hash stealer sends to us different hashes from the same IP in the same session. He is most probably an impersonator trying to get a better position in our queue.
The only "dispute" (and I wouldn't dare to say that) is the LH issue. Those clients weren't following the GPL and as no source code was released and their behavior didn't seem to be fair they can also be called leechers. |
isnt a hashstealer, somone on the same port and ip that changes hashes?
DonGato
May 20 2004, 12:34
Yes, forgot to add the port thing.
mkbrown32
May 21 2004, 03:33
| QUOTE (DonGato @ May 20 2004, 10:32) |
aggressive client request from us frequently not observing the limit of 3 times in less than 9 minutes. A bad network connection or a wrongly configured/coded client can do this also.
hash stealer sends to us different hashes from the same IP in the same session. He is most probably an impersonator trying to get a better position in our queue.
The only "dispute" (and I wouldn't dare to say that) is the LH issue. Those clients weren't following the GPL and as no source code was released and their behavior didn't seem to be fair they can also be called leechers. |
Is it not possible that 2 users connecting to the ED2K network through the same home router or through a corporate or university NAT would show up as the same IP Address to the outside world ?
Also, what is LH ?
Are you saying that the developer of LH took source code from the sourceforge database and then took that software private and did not release subsequent software source code releases ?
mkbrown32
| QUOTE (mkbrown32 @ May 21 2004, 03:33) |
Also, what is LH ? Are you saying that the developer of LH took source code from the sourceforge database and then took that software private and did not release subsequent software source code releases ? |
mkbrown32
May 21 2004, 12:49
| QUOTE (Aw3 @ May 21 2004, 04:25) |
| QUOTE (mkbrown32 @ May 21 2004, 03:33) | Also, what is LH ? Are you saying that the developer of LH took source code from the sourceforge database and then took that software private and did not release subsequent software source code releases ? |
|
Interesting thread though a lot of 'inside baseball' and playing the 'race card'.
I would like to see some of these other Opennap programs like AudioGnome and WinMX put through that type of source code theft scrutiny.
Many of these programs have secret source code but have development which is halted or crawls along, indicating that the possessor of the code really is not completely knowledgeable about what is in the code.
mkbrown32
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.