gfxgfx
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
gfx gfx
gfx
75410 Posts in 13199 Topics by 2641 Members - Latest Member: lokta October 19, 2017, 09:44:57 pm
*
gfx*gfx
gfx
WinMX World :: Forum  |  WinMX Help  |  WinMX Connection Issues  |  For users of old hosts file patches.
gfx
gfxgfx
 

Author Topic: For users of old hosts file patches.  (Read 19495 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Neutron

  • Forum Member
For users of old hosts file patches.
« on: November 08, 2006, 11:10:13 pm »
For those who are having problems connecting to WinMX using Pie-patch or other old hosts file patches, there is an alternate patch available at www.winmxgroup.com

This patch has a lot of benefits that hosts file patches don't have

1. When a cache is moved to a new server, or changes IP address, it will not need updating, as it uses hostnames instead of fixed IP addresses.

2. Automatically filters fake files from your results, so you won't have problems finding the files you want.

3. Uses multiple cache-servers, meaning if one goes down, you will still be able to connect to the network through one of the other caches.

4. Helps the network by automatically blocking and filtering bad traffic.

There are no downsides with this patch, and it is not missing any features that old hosts file patches have.

To upgrade to the new patch, simply go to www.winmxgroup.com and download the new patch.
Close WinMX and run the installer, then follow the instructions on the screen. When it's all set up, you'll have the same old WinMX that you always had, free of fakes, with no need of cluttering around with various patches and upgrades to stay updated.

Rumours vs. facts

* I've heard that this patch contains a backdoor, is this true?
- No, the patch does not contain any backdoor. The developer of this patch and us at WinMxWorld have had a few arguments with the operators of MXpie, and as a result they have made up false accusations about the patch and our community trying to make users get rid of our patch and install theirs.

* I have been told that this patch updates itself, and that it could possibly download a dangerous update from the patch server, is that true?
- No, the patch cannot automatically replace itself on your PC. When you open WinMX with the patch, the patch will look up the IPs of the cache-servers and load a blocklist that is used within WinMX. All of this is stored in your PC's memory and is deleted when you close WinMX. It does not save anything on your hard drive or download any update that could possibly be harmful.

* I have been told that this patch makes changes to my computer without notifying me about it, is this true?
- The patch will, like any other program, make the changes that are needed for it to operate. It adds an entry to the hosts file for www.winmx.com for the update bar in WinMX to work. This entry is removed when WinMX is closed, and does not affect anything that is not related to WinMX. During install, the installer checks the registry for some entries to make sure the patch will be loaded by WinMX. Such operations are 100% normal in any program, not just this one.

* I've heard rumours that the operator of this patch can release attacks against other servers using my internet connection, is that true?
- No, again this is just another false accusation that the operators of MXpie made up.


WinMxWorld and WinMXGroup are both serious and well grown communities. WinMxWorld has been up for over 2 years, which was even before frontcode had to take their cache-servers offline.
Our good help is how we managed to get this large community up and running.

We are trying not to bring users into this "patch drama", but I get asked about this a lot, and I think the only right thing to do is to let users know the truth, and what is really going on:

The truth is that WinMXGroup provides a better patch than MXpie. By providing the better patch, the more users use it. MXpie on the other hand make up lies and deny users any information about WinMXGroup's patch because they know their patch is not as good as WinMXGroup's patch. WinMXGroup is simply the better solution, and there's nothing to hide. MXpie make up false accusations and have no evidence to back up any of their claims, simply because there isn't any. You can even ask MXpie yourself, and see what they claim, and what evidence they have to back it up. Whenever they break something, they blame it on us, or assume we are attacking them - we aren't.

Offline SamSeeSam

  • Forum Member
  • The Sky will never Fall on our heads
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2006, 04:45:26 am »
I'd like to add this one too:

* Are you wishing to have monopoly over winmx?
- No. Never. Any alternative solutions will be welcome if they satisfy two simple conditions:
1> The patch must block Riaa flooders. It must protect users from them, and filter them from search results.
2> Users must be given all necessary information of what the patch does to their computers and winmx. Also the users must be given the option of choosing any other effective patches that might be there (currently however, only winmxgroup is an effective patch)

Cheers :P
Reconnect to winmx with the blocking patch :)
Patch link :
http://patch.winmxconex.com/

Spread the word now :)

Offline Max™

  • MX Hosts
  • *****
  • If Im Not Back later... Wait Longer
    • Maxtech
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2006, 10:06:26 am »
As FXServer relies on a hosts file, using the ws2_32/dll patch is great and will connect, but you will see an error on your FXS window and in the log "hosts file not found" there is a way round this....
go to ur "etc" folder (if C: is ur hard drive) goto C: >> Windows >> System32 >> Drivers >> Etc,
when ur in ur Etc folder look for ur hosts file, right click & open with notepad, u should see a row of IP's with winmx.com next to them, at the top u shuld see an IP 127.0.0.1 localhost, leave that there DoNot remove that one, all the other IP's under with winmx.com or anything related to it like winmxerrr u can delete, then save it,
now make sure the 3rd party patch ws2_32.dll is in that folder (copy it to there) and make sure the ws2_32.dll is also in ur FXS folder, then ur FXS should run withont errores and should connect ok.
the ws2_32.dll will connect you, the hosts file will stop FXS giving u the  "hosts file not found" error.



Try Connecting, the attacks may let you http://patch.winmxconex.com/

Offline Me Here

  • Ret. WinMX Special Forces
  • WMW Team
  • *****
  • We came, We Saw, We definatly Kicked Ass!
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2006, 10:45:48 am »
Actually, having the Third Party Patch (ws2_32.dll) downloaded and loaded into your FX folder or any bots, and other third party things that require a connection is all that is needed, along then with the hosts file in the 'Etc' folder containing your loopback 127.0.0.1  LocalHost.

In other words copying the ws2_32.dll into the Etc folder will serve no purpose.

I do so wish Fede would fix his Chat Server to not rely on any connection patch to connet, this would take care of many problems users have with it and allow them the freedom to use the blocking patch for MX without having to do all this..  :?

Offline PARROT1958

  • Forum Member
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2007, 04:15:15 am »
I followed the instructions to get my winmx up and running again, but the page it takes me too has no other direction in downloading...What is up with that?  Where to go to get my winmx up and running?
thanks..

Micromecca

  • Guest
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2007, 04:17:26 am »

sharren

  • Guest
the new patch from winmx world
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2007, 06:14:35 am »
Ive tried the new patch this morning (3rd July) but it doesn't seem to be working. the other day i was getting a connection from open nap networks but even that has gone now. the new patch has done nothing to help at all   can someone please tell me what I'm doing wrong     thank you

oldman

  • Guest
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2007, 12:08:56 am »
i dont know is this is the proper thread, but the old "pie patch" is still working fine. i was offline for a few days due to heavy storms, i started winmx a few minutes ago and it came right up, had 110 ppl qued up and 4 uploads going almost immediately. hope this helps someone

Offline Me Here

  • Ret. WinMX Special Forces
  • WMW Team
  • *****
  • We came, We Saw, We definatly Kicked Ass!
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2007, 11:18:26 pm »
Oldman yes the pie patch will still connect you, what I think you have missed here and in the room when we talked to you about this last nite is simply connecting to WinMX using a hosts file does more damage then good. You obviously didnt read the links I asked you to read here they are again:

http://www.winmxworld.com/tutorials/fake_file_info.html
http://www.winmxworld.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4113.0.html

WinMX Group users have come to expect more from their experience on here.. or less you could say.. with no fakes and no RIAA using them to DDOS attack other primary users..

If your running Pie and PG your not protected.

DogMan

  • Guest
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2007, 01:34:11 am »
Tried updating with the new connection patch for existing setups, but it would only seem to allow updates to WinMX installed on C drive. When you click to browse for your actual install path, the only option is C drive. Anyone else with the same problem?

Offline ChrisHum

  • Forum Member
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2007, 11:46:34 am »
The above WinMX patch links are dead.

Here's a link to the Patch for v. 3.54 users:

http://www.fisioterapiautebo.com/estwinmx/3.0mod2-3.54-Setup.exe [nofollow]

 :D

Offline GnarlySnarly

  • Forum Member
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2007, 04:51:11 am »
Oldman yes the pie patch will still connect you, what I think you have missed here and in the room when we talked to you about this last nite is simply connecting to WinMX using a hosts file does more damage then good. You obviously didnt read the links I asked you to read here they are again:

http://www.winmxworld.com/tutorials/fake_file_info.html
http://www.winmxworld.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4113.0.html

WinMX Group users have come to expect more from their experience on here.. or less you could say.. with no fakes and no RIAA using them to DDOS attack other primary users..

If your running Pie and PG your not protected.

Can we clarify?

[please be advised, I haven't followed any winmx or DLL development over the last year, so may not be aware of any technical improvements that may have been incorporated into the latest DLL version.  The following assessment is based on my understanding of the DLL function as of June 2006]

1] Connectivity
Both the pie patch and the DLL will get you connected, though to effectively different nets, since [last I knew] they used different and exclusive peer cache server lists.  The best connectivity may be achieved by creating a custom host file with all known current peer cache server IPs and unless I am again mistaken, those that do this as primary hubs help to reunite the different nets and act as a bridge to make for a larger single community, which should show more search results and greater file availability.  Such unification of the split nets helps attain the critical mass of users that is needed to make winmx net look like it is a lively place.

2] RIAA flooder filtering.
For those that connect as secondaries, this function is irrelevant.  The flooders can only connect to the primary hubs, so whatever benefits this may have only applies to those who choose to run winmx in primary hub mode.
For those that do elect to run as primary hubs, the DLL has this flooder block function built in and apparently does it efficiently.  But PG can use the same block list to filter these chaff file flooders also and has the added option to block lots of other creeps as the user so desires.  My experience is that it uses more CPU resources if lots of block lists are used.

3] Filtering fake search results
How is this filtering done?  My understanding is that the DLL uses the 'known flooder' IP block list for filtering of search results on the receiving end.  Does this help filter the use''s results window?  Yes, but at what cost?  What effect does this have on the WINMX network?  User's will likely do LOTS more searching of popular chaff-protected files.  They don't see the chaff floods.  But the full chaff floods are being propagated throughout the net and through the primary hubs.  They even flood into the user's computer, but the DLL simply filters them at the last moment from the user's results display.  The net is still overloaded and even more so with this method, since it encourages more promiscuous, careless searches.  It's just that the user doesn't see the results, and isn't aware of the damage being done, and can't learn to limit searches of chaff-protected files.

Using SEARCH limiter terms, like the now largely deprecated "-user" and such stops the searches and resulting loads from being propagated.  Such methods protect the WPN infrastructure better.  Merely filtering the results from the searching user's screen doesn't protect WPN, but tends to exacerbate the problem.

Offline GhostShip

  • Ret. WinMX Special Forces
  • WMW Team
  • *****
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2007, 09:39:29 am »
I'm not sure where to start in this mass of disinformation  :shock:


1] Connectivity

The WPN network is a single entity network and those joining it by various means are still connected to that single network, the client incorporate node swapping in its primary protocol to ensure it remains strong and healthy, there are not two separate networks as to join the existing network to obtain room lists etc you will need to be connected to the single WPN network, it is possible to create a second network but users obtaining no room-list or results in file searches are likely to be aware something is not right.


2] RIAA flooder filtering

I refer you to the tutorial describing how and why utilising a host file is not ideal in terms of network protection

http://www.winmxworld.com/tutorials/fake_file_info.html

What your overlooking in your advice to use PG is that this will be only beneficial if two conditions are met and of course the first one would be the lists are accurate, PG without our block-list is about as useful as wet matches, worse it will come with a block-list having 900 million IP's in it, as one poster here pointed out that's one third of the entire allocated IP addressing space, with its out of date lists its actually more likely to block fellow file sharers that to be of any use.
The second condition is of course that it will only block the flooders from connecting to you, it most certainly will not filter out the fake file listing that appear as this would require PG to parse (or read the contents of ) each incoming packet, something it cannot do, so with the wmw block-list only half protection is obtained instead of the full automatic protection utilised in the current patch offered by this site.

3] Filtering fake search results
See above as these two topics are inter related.

While you have been away Gnarly the cartel have largely negated the "-user" style of flooding technique and have evolved into a more diverse and confusing range of options to ensnare users and drive them from this network by poisoning their search results regardless of subject matter in most cases.

Your claim is completely flawed with regard to efficiency of blocking/filtering as the dll patch has never "merely" filtered results it also blocks those intent on disrupting the network from uploading those fakes in the first place, so your actually only giving users half of the picture which is not helpful in my opinion.

Lets clarify, if a host file users initiates a search there will be 100% of matching or partially matching fake files in the result, how is it possible that its not of benefit to users to have this "chaff" removed automatically ?

On a further note please don't take offence at the technical aspects being presented here they are after all based on research conducted by ourselves and as such we feel able to speak with some authority now on how the network operates and why fake files results are not choosy about who calls them be it dll or host file user, the difference only being are the filtered search results displayed of benefit to the users, we would like to think common sense says this is the case.


 


Offline GnarlySnarly

  • Forum Member
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2007, 10:44:25 am »
I'm not sure where to start in this mass of disinformation  :shock:

Maybe by starting with an open mind?


Quote from: GhostShip
1] Connectivity

The WPN network is a single entity network and those joining it by various means are still connected to that single network, the client incorporate node swapping in its primary protocol to ensure it remains strong and healthy, there are not two separate networks as to join the existing network to obtain room lists etc you will need to be connected to the single WPN network, it is possible to create a second network but users obtaining no room-list or results in file searches are likely to be aware something is not right.

I could be wrong, but here's how I think it works at present:

Last time I checked...
The highly volatile DLL list included these 7 IPs:
 
[edit] Quantity Of IP,s removed by Mizz for breaching site policy.


The 'enemy' MXpie team uses these 4:
 
[edit] Quantity Of IP,s removed by Mizz for breaching site policy.

I note that they are mutually exclusive, not a single overlapping IP.  As you know, in the beginning, the two 'groups' shared a common composite list.  As they are now, those joining using the mxpie host list will connect to the mxpie servers.  The MXpie servers will add their IP to the cache and supply 10? IPs of other...MXpie users.  The effect is that MXpie users tend to connect to other MXpie users.

Those who use the DLL will be supplied with the IPs pf other DLL users to connect to and hence will tend to group with them.  Once online, further node IP information is propagated from other users.  But since the other users one is connected to will tend to be controlled by the method of connection which now determines which group of peer cache server IPs is initially accessed.

There is not a total isolation for at least two possible reasons:
1] The net was at one time unified and some residual cross connect may remain and
2] some hardcases insist on writing their own host lists which utilize all of the IPs from both warring camps.  These users then will act as a bridge between the two otherwise relatively separate winmx nets and tend to unify it though not I doubt as efficiently as would be if both groups kissed and made nice and returned to using a comprehensive composite IP list again.


Quote from: GhostShip
2] RIAA flooder filtering

I refer you to the tutorial describing how and why utilising a host file is not ideal in terms of network protection

http://www.winmxworld.com/tutorials/fake_file_info.html

What your overlooking in your advice to use PG is that this will be only beneficial if two conditions are met and of course the first one would be the lists are accurate, PG without our block-list is about as useful as wet matches, worse it will come with a block-list having 900 million IP's in it, as one poster here pointed out that's one third of the entire allocated IP addressing space, with its out of date lists its actually more likely to block fellow file sharers that to be of any use.

I am not overlooking that at all.  I suggest that again the community produce a good block list and make it available to both DLL and MXPIE/PG users.  same 'accurate list'.  same blocking effectiveness.  So what if PG comes with the ability to block more IPs?  It is an option and the users can decide for themselves which other block lists to use, if any.  They should be educated to the pros and cons, both of which exist.


Quote from: GhostShip
The second condition is of course that it will only block the flooders from connecting to you, it most certainly will not filter out the fake file listing that appear as this would require PG to parse (or read the contents of ) each incoming packet, something it cannot do, so with the wmw block-list only half protection is obtained instead of the full automatic protection utilised in the current patch offered by this site.

Lets not confuse the issue, which here is blocking, not filtering.  That is the next item.


Quote from: GhostShip
3] Filtering fake search results
See above as these two topics are inter related.

While you have been away Gnarly the cartel have largely negated the "-user" style of flooding technique and have evolved into a more diverse and confusing range of options to ensnare users and drive them from this network by poisoning their search results regardless of subject matter in most cases.

Interrelated only in that they both use the same IP block list.  Other than that the function is different.

If you will re-read what I stated, you will see that I said that the -user trick was "largely deprecated" as in obsolete, or as you restated it, "largely negated".  But the fact that they have by and large stopped using a /user/ subdirectory does not rule out the use of some other terms to filter searches.  But again, such methods are easily defeated, so the more effective procedure would be to reduce flooder access - blocking.

Quote from: GhostShip
Your claim is completely flawed with regard to efficiency of blocking/filtering as the dll patch has never "merely" filtered results it also blocks those intent on disrupting the network from uploading those fakes in the first place, so your actually only giving users half of the picture which is not helpful in my opinion.

You are mixing and confusing issues again.  BOTH the DLL and a hosts list with PG can use the same block list and block equally as well.


Quote from: GhostShip
Lets clarify, if a host file users initiates a search there will be 100% of matching or partially matching fake files in the result, how is it possible that its not of benefit to users to have this "chaff" removed automatically ?

Are we talking about assumed user benefits or protection of the WPN infrastructure, which is the ultimate user benefit?


Quote from: GhostShip
On a further note please don't take offence at the technical aspects being presented here they are after all based on research conducted by ourselves and as such we feel able to speak with some authority now on how the network operates and why fake files results are not choosy about who calls them be it dll or host file user, the difference only being are the filtered search results displayed of benefit to the users, we would like to think common sense says this is the case.

Sometimes common sense is merely common non-sense.

Had I not been distracted by more pressing issues over the last year, I would have been able to explain this last June when I thunk it all up and .  But at least you had a year to figure it all out yourself after I suggested to you back then that there were some potential downsides to the filtering function.

This has become one of the big selling points for the DLL.  "Search for all the latest, hot files you want and fakes will be filtered from your screen" - That's just a great improvement for the user experience right?  So more users who are seeking these mostly chaff-flooded files will return to WINMX and start doing more and more searches for these types of files.  And they are so happy they aren't flooded with fakes!  That has got to be great right?  common sense right?

But what is really happening and what effect is it having on the infrastructure of WPN?  Yes, I read the current explanation of the problems at http://www.winmxworld.com/tutorials/fake_file_info.html .. and found it less than clear exactly how the filtering is done, so it poses more questions than it answers for me.

This line perhaps offers a clue:  "Any secondaries attached to a WinMXGroup primary are automatically protected and will not receive any fake results".  To me that suggests that the filtering is done by the DLL primaries, by parsing EVERY search result, fake or not, and dumping any that come from IPs on the current block list.  These DLL primaries may save a little bandwidth by not forwarding these chaff packets, but wouldn't it be at the cost of more CPU resources on the primaries computer?  Perhaps the CPU load of filtering and dumping would be less than the CPU load for propagating the results without filtering, I don't know.  But it seems that IF the primaries are doing the packet parsing and filtering, they would be doing this for all search results, even good files and not just the fake chaff files.  The user searching for such chaff-protected files gets a free pass and the burden of these searches is dumped onto the primaries and the net infrastructure.  I suppose the RIAA could add lots of clients to do continual searches for their own chaff-file trigger words thereby causing an avalanche of results that the DLL primaries would have to work overtime to filter.  Is that good practice?

And if the burden of filtering the chaff-files is handled by the searching users own computer rather than by the promaries, then the CPU load is on them, but the bandwidth load [and related CPU loads] are felt by primaries all over the net.

It seems that this filtering comes at a significant infrastructure resource cost regardless.  And by making it so users are oblivious to the ill effects of searching for chaffed files, it would seem to be common sense that they would search more and more for the in-demand latest files that tend to be chaff-protected.  Their behavior would continue unchanged or likely become even more helpful to the RIAA as unwitting accomplices to their flooding scheme.

Compare that to a host list user, who sees the results of such searching with lots of fake file results.  Wouldn't it be common sense that they would change their search habits and just maybe start to thumb their noses at RIAA/MPAA content?

Again, I am not clear exactly how the filtering is done, but I think more might be involved than simply "improving" the user experience by masking the effects of their behavior on the WPN infrastructure.

Yes, ideally if everyone used the DLL or PG with the blocking list, there would be no fakes to filter...  all I know is that flooders attack the secondary connection pool and searches for chaffed files takes its toll on the WPN infrastructure filtered or not.  Whether or not the CPU cost of filtering all search results is less than the CPU cost of propagating those results back to the searching user I don't know.  IF the DLL primaries do have to sacrifice their CPU resources to filter the packets, is it overbearing?  It would seem to save bandwidth if this is how it works.  But what protects the user connected to a hosts-list primary that doesn't filter the fakes for them?  Does their DLL redundantly parse and filter the packets also?  Or is all of the filtering done at the search requesters computer?  If that, then the WPN bandwidth is stressed.

Like I said, more questions than answers...  maybe you can clue me in a little.




Offline SamSeeSam

  • Forum Member
  • The Sky will never Fall on our heads
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2007, 01:20:21 pm »
I'll quote my own post made in another topic :

The giving out ips was there for over a year. You can still find it it one of the section It was called , "Blocklist" and here is the thread : http://www.winmxworld.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1074.0.html

It was discontinued as macrovision used to see the thread and I believe change ips of the flooders then or something. Anyways, when Me here stopped updating the thread (as a test) , after one week, there was an attack by macrovision or some other antiP2P company on the caches, which none of us would have noticed if it had not been for notification put up by km, thanks to his great work and the rest of the team too.
Read km's notification here : http://www.winmxworld.com/forum2/index.php/topic,4104.15.html

So to prevent this sort of thing the public posting of updates was stopped.

Cheers :P

I understand that this is the reason why the blocklist updates were terminated, and will not be resumed on a long term basis for sometime.
I do agree that sharing the same blocklist will help. But making it open (as in a url) will prompt a further increase in ip changes of flooders.

And one more point. You say that if a drastic flooder increase will happen, then the cpu consumption of dll primaries will increase as well.
Well, the same thing applies for pg too lol. It consumes a lot of resources too and will do so if a significant increase in attacks happen too.

Cheers :P
Reconnect to winmx with the blocking patch :)
Patch link :
http://patch.winmxconex.com/

Spread the word now :)

Offline GnarlySnarly

  • Forum Member
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2007, 07:18:11 pm »
And one more point. You say that if a drastic flooder increase will happen, then the cpu consumption of dll primaries will increase as well.
Well, the same thing applies for pg too lol. It consumes a lot of resources too and will do so if a significant increase in attacks happen too.

As to blocking based on IP, I think I indicated that it was my belief the DLL was more CPU efficient than PG.

But as to filtering search results, since PG doesn't do this, there is no increase of CPUsage for this function except for DLL users.

I am not trying to be an obstructionist, its just my nature to analyze and critique things to both learn more and to offer free advice.  with the admitted caveat that sometimes my two-cents just ain't worth a plugged nickel [sorry for the USA cliches in an international forum :) ].

Just this morning I 'discovered' a new forum dealing with hosts list fixes.. and noted that there is some significant dissent in the vladd/mxpie camp too.  goes to show how much 'out of the loop' I am on such things.  Control freaks do tend to take a toll.

Out of this, perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel, light to help see a better path...one built on sharing, cooperation...building a community, not an empire.  power to the people.  :) :thumbs:

Offline GhostShip

  • Ret. WinMX Special Forces
  • WMW Team
  • *****
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2007, 09:21:06 pm »
As you yourself stated Gnarly common sense is common sense, if there where no host file users to launch attacks on other users then there would be no fakes, this is a great observation you have made, common sense dictates you would understand the ramifications of such a statement ?

I am disappointed in you for ignoring a whole section of my reply, please note once more and as posted in 2 or 3 other threads now I have informed you of how the single entity WPN is realised and not a fictitious dual network as you visualise, which part of my explanation are you not understanding ?

I take exception to your further musings that are based more on fantasy than fact namely host file users having different searching habits to dll users , let me be candid in my reply to such a claim, its complete and utter rubbish, not only am I able to see such searches with special tools and therefore know with certainty its wrong I also am aware the client does most of the filtering itself .
I challenge you to find a current situation where typing anything in the filter box improves results, as your aware as soon as you declare openly that such and such is a filter its likely to become useless, such is the case with -user, feel free to also show me links to any improved methods you claim host file users could be utilising as the rest of us are more than eager to see such information being shared as would need to be the case to make your scenario have any claim on reality.

I wish you to take note that those offering block lists thus far (with the exception of pie info and those anti P2P folks at Blutak who offer a useless block list for PG2 users),  are now after recent discussions currently supplied and using the community block-list, this is something that's been in place for a long time now and is 100% accurate in blocking fake network flooders without exception, whilst we agree filtering is a desired improvement its not as critical as accurate and wholesale blocking.

Just so you understand the simple position here Gnarly its this, we aim to help users achieve the best possible usage of the network and only wish to deliver to them the best tools for the job, with a diverse range of users and the lack of  technical knowledge possessed by a portion of those users its really common sense once more that an automatic block-list is employed and that user not allow themselves to be used as launch platforms for denial of service attacks on their fellow users, education is surely the key but perhaps I'm missing the point in asking it be directed towards those groups who offer no blocking or even help for those that request it.

The future with an open src patch will hopefully make all the above redundant and allow users more power over how they connect whilst at the same time ensuring the improved technical aspects of those benefits is passed on to all of the users if they so choose to utilise them, this is choice and I still think its best to offer a choice where possible.

If folks are determined to use a host file could I ask them to use a solution that recognises the flooding problem and delivers a current block-list, this is a minimum courtesy and should be in place for the  benefit of all WPN users, please take note PG2 does not deliver such a list.

Quote
Out of this, perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel, light to help see a better path...one built on sharing, cooperation...building a community, not an empire.  power to the people.

Its my hope Gnarly that there is indeed  light and users are lead to it in the form of taking part in operating community caches if they can as well as the technically minded folks utilising their talents to offer open scr and free solutions to any and every user that seeks such a solution, I agree there should be no empires, that said until we see some of the fruit of the community ripen into maturity, I can only ask we do the best for all users now and that is block-lists usage and education to the users in ensuring they use a system that's updated and current, to do otherwise is in my opinion bordering on criminal.
 

Offline just4fun

  • Forum Member
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2007, 11:40:56 pm »
2] some hardcases insist on writing their own host lists which utilize all of the IPs from both warring camps.  These users then will act as a bridge between the two otherwise relatively separate winmx nets and tend to unify it though not I doubt as efficiently as would be if both groups kissed and made nice and returned to using a comprehensive composite IP list again.

Hey GnarlySnarly,

Is this procedure viable for secondary users too?  Do you use it?

Incidently, it appears the MXpie group's fix adds more than 4 IP's to the Hosts file.

Enjoyed the 'debate'.  I too am a skeptic of all things technical.  38 years with IBM will do that to a person.

Offline Bearded Blunder

  • Forum Member
    • Taboo Community Website
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2007, 02:49:20 am »
there are no separate networks.. winmx gets a short list of primaries & connects, the rest of the primaries it connects to it finds itself.. through other primaries, without reference to any cache.. this makes the idea of it being split nonsense.. because it finds primaries.. not "dll primaries" or "pie primaries" ... just "other connected nodes"...
Blessed is he who expecteth nothing, for he shall not be disappointed.

Offline SamSeeSam

  • Forum Member
  • The Sky will never Fall on our heads
Re: For users of old hosts file patches.
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2007, 05:12:58 am »
Then I suppose it works like this : primary gets 1 or 2 primari ips and the rest it gets from the network...
Yes this will make sure there cannot be two networks...

Cheers :P
Reconnect to winmx with the blocking patch :)
Patch link :
http://patch.winmxconex.com/

Spread the word now :)

WinMX World :: Forum  |  WinMX Help  |  WinMX Connection Issues  |  For users of old hosts file patches.
 

gfxgfx
gfx
©2005-2017 WinMXWorld.com. All rights reserved.
SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.077 seconds with 17 queries.
Helios Multi © Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!