Author Topic: Even former Pie team members forced to admit the truth (Read 3014 times)

Bearded Blunder · « **on:** July 19, 2006, 02:16:33 pm »

Seems the truth about getting round the fakes is being admitted finally over there.. At least by one former Pie team member, nice one Nobby, whatever we may or may not agree about, I respect you having the guts to state the truth.

The "kmware" referred to of course is the real patch for WinMX (here if you want it)

Currently there is no common factor in the share paths Macrovision are using, so keyword filters simply won't work.

GhostShip · « **Reply #1 on:** July 20, 2006, 07:39:45 am »

I did notice this on the other forum, and I am of course very pleased that Nobby posted such a comment and it was taken in a reasonable fashion, had I posted the same comment I am sure the outcome would have been markedly different

The point is its the right comment, Nobby is fully aware that the flooders are the bad guys here and at times we have been at each others throats over what action was required and when, but on this issue it is a necessity for all to agree to helping rid the network of the disruptor's (Macrovision).

We are slowly but firmly gaining ground over the flooders now as information regarding them is starting to be visible in more places, it is surely a mater of time before we can banish them, there is however a fly in the ointment to doing this, to rid the WPN of the enemy requires all users to take affirmative action in blocking their entry to the network, and make no mistake here, as long as the method in use is effective we are more than happy to see it used.

I have been hearing recently of some moves towards more protection for host file users, whilst I would dearly love to see all users on the winmx group patch with its superior features and ongoing development, I recognise there are those, who for one reason or another will not use it, this is a major setback to all users as it only takes a small percentage of the user base operating with no protection to allow the network to be disrupted, I am however 100% certain if we continue increasing the level of protection to users that Macrovisions activities will not be seen as effective by their paymasters way before then, and they will close down their operations.

So lets hear from some of you on what the minimum requirements are for any blocking solution that we can all agree on, the more detailed the better, also if you have a solution that you think may benefit those diehards using the host file fix lets hear that too.

The door is open folks, lets bring a positive and united message as we move forward in driving the scourge of Macrovision even further into winmx history.

Me Here · « **Reply #2 on:** July 20, 2006, 10:27:52 am »

I have a few suggestions.

Peerguardian is open source, now I am no programmer however I am sure someone out there is...

Peerguardian programed to use the WMW block list from a url, not a text file.
Remove the default lists unless someone specifically asks for them during installation( including the allow list), instead of the other way around.
Set to default check for update every 2 hours, non negotiable.
Remove the HTTP block all together

I think it could be slimmed down from its larger version but I dont think from what I have seen of the lite version it has enough versility to it..

As for the avoiding fakes.. cause this will still be a major problem I have some suggestions for that as well, I believe I offered to talk to LG about but she didnt seem interested.. if anyone is.. just let me know.

Bearded Blunder · « **Reply #3 on:** July 20, 2006, 10:46:56 pm »

OK, here's my "wishlist" for alternate systems.. for those who (for whatever reason, don't want the winmxgroup patch)

It should install with the patch (or with winmx if a combined installer is made)
It should install preconfigured to fetch the blocklist.
It should update frequently (say a 2hr cycle)
It should be on whenever winmx runs, ideally being used to START winmx in a similar way to MxM, Leechammer, or the old ignition chat patch did.

I'm no programmer, but I suspect a modified version of PeerGuardian could be made to do those things, in conjunction with a hosts file to connect, if someone with the ability tried.

I also strongly suspect a modified version of BendMX could be made, some work has already been done on blocking with it, & those dll files are capable of being used for connecting also, in the same dynamic, self-updating way that the winmxgroup patch does, removing the need for manual updates.

The second strikes me as the better (though more difficult) solution. Why? Well just look in the world news section at how pirate bay's servers were taken down under legally questionable circumstances..

A system relying on DNS rather than fixed IP addresses can quickly be adjusted to use replacement servers, making winmx less vulnerable to such tactics, users on a hosts file would be faced with re patching, even if a replacement was up within minutes, although mainly it's about the fact that winmx would require blocking to be loaded & active in order to connect, otherwise there will be some who won't use it "oh MXguardian slows my PC too much, I don't bother.." or some excuse..

..Ñøßß¥.. · « **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2006, 08:55:40 am »

Quote from: Bearded Blunder on July 19, 2006, 02:16:33 pm

Seems the truth about getting round the fakes is being admitted finally over there..

Its not new and i havent been "forced" to admit the truth, its ALWAYS been the case that using various words to help filter results would have a shelf life, all you need to do it think back the many keywords that have been used in the past and countered. By far the easiest way to remove fakes from searches, is simply to remove fakes from the network, something in conjunction with folks from here i began posting about back in October. I am only too well aware hosts file users who continue to use that connection method, need an improved tool suitable for ensuring they are protected, many will not use the .dll. This is not something Pie are prepared to get involved with, hence one of the reasons i departed, it would seem for at least 1 pie member the fact that i continue to openly support blocking and efforts to widely introduce it to hosts file users, is all too much, this user has contacted me several times, and lets just say the tone used and threats enclosed were laughable to say the least.

Bearded if you look back at many of my posts, the bulk of my arguments with folks here was not on end results and goals, simply on methods used to get there, i still have concerns over legal issues, the morality of using fakes to advertise patches, the closed source .dll, multiple connection methods, diversity of peer caches etc etc, my opinions havent changed, the same as my opinion hasnt changed that we should block these damn flooders off the network, on that at least we all agree.

Bearded Blunder · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:04:47 am »

Well at least everyone sane agrees we need to block the bad guys off the network.

I myself fail to see the legal consequence of, a "filter" which in fact isn't, & is more of an "ignore user by IP" effectively enhanced firewalling only, even if those legal precedents meant anything in a different country from which they were set, they don't apply, because those situations were ones where the companies could have FILTERED.. stopped specific things.. we can't block copyright material & allow shareware, merely block a user's results completely from appearing, with major effort involved to track a small number of users, it could in no way be applied on a large scale involving many thousands of dynamic IP addresses.

Fakes are not being put onto the WPN for advertising patches. If you're referring to a message provided to people who aren't connected anymore, for the purpose of informing them on a reconnection method, they aren't on WinMX, & those users aren't actually connected to WinMX, I have no moral issues about what is effectively a rescue effort for stranded users who would otherwise have that awful flashing yellow we all remember. I applaud the effort & am pleased we can spare them that.

Closed source .dll .... hmmm aren't we being just a LITTLE picky? Or are you going to object to closed source Windows & closed source WinMX & refuse to use those too? Closed source is the NORM for software of any kind, be it commercial, shareware or freeware, open source is nice in principle, but not something we can demand of any coder, particularly one who is donating their time & talent, I'm perfectly happy to simply be grateful he IS.. & if it was open, it's not exactly as if either of us would UNDERSTAND the source for it, but members of our enemy camp certainly WOULD, I don't know what they could do with that information, but I don't personally want to bet the network on it not being potentially harmful. You only have to examine WinMX history to see where things KM let out turned out NOT to be as innocuous as he thought when they were let out...

I've nothing against diverse connection methods & caches, I even suggested a possible approach above to providing an alternate WITH blocking. & one more suited to diverse & shifting (therefore less vulnerable) caches in my previous post, namely a modified BendMX, hell if I WAS a coder I'd probably be working on it rather than typing this.. for all it's virtues the connection dll has issues with BendMX & I for one MISS BendMX, a sacrifice I'm making to block EFFECTIVELY.

Whatever your interpretation of how I phrased my original post, please be assured I respect & applaud the fact you HAVE openly stated the case for blocking, & have been honest about the efficacy of keyword filtering.