WINMX WORLD VS VLADD44

[bughunter]

remind me again quicks why we permitt postings like knarly,s.........as there clearly made by someone pretending they know something about how winmx or the wpn works.............his last posting was basically a pathetic argument that says its ok for pie to continue flooding the network as long as a blocklist which no pie member contributes too does all the work finding riaa who as quicks rightly pointed out have changed tactics making it even harder to filter out requiring even more resources to find ...........sounds like an excuise for a bunch of lazy assholes who have contributed nothing to winmx but have played the single biggest role in helping destroy it can have there hosts file..............guess what knarly.....WRONG...........his statement about how big a deal is the flooding and who says there even is flooding clearly says hes never used pg2........because the floods are there everyday for anyone to see...........like every other pie maggot who hasnt contributed anything useful to winmx since the crash asks how bad is the fakes issue anyways and always quote some stupid search they did that returned only good results...........if you had ever worked on the blocklist you would know how bad the fake file problem is...............reality is pie is dead its passed its used by date, those of you who continue to try susgest it has a part in winmx will simply be locked out...........
so tell me again quicks why we permit postings like knarlys as i fail to see what it did other then try to state the case for a virus known as pie.............and as for winmxworld vs vladd44 lol no contest vladd and pie have simply been out thought out muscled and out classed by a superiour programmer and a decated group of individuals who have the communities interests at heart..............unlike vladd who has only his own monety interests at heart...............

[Me Here]

Well I just couldn't stand it, I decided since this has become a thread of comparison shopping so to speak we should compare some search results ..

(Keep in mind please that I have a modified version of the 3.0 patch that allows me to see IPs in the searches in order to keep the block list up to date.)

Below you will see an identical search to that of KMs above, but as its lacking the blocking feature I thought you might like to see what the blocking can do.

1. Notice of course the drive letters.  Rest assured I could fill up this page and two more with screen shots of searches I conducted only this evening using the '-user' word filter and the DLL modified patch.  I can assure you that almost any letter of the alphabet is covered. C-Z.

2. Note the color of the Status/Server, this has been set in My WinMX settings as the color to indicate already blocked IPs.  Please also note the name as its seen on the Block List of the offending party.

3. This particular search yielded .avi results, however others conducted received a wide variety of file types.

4. Last interesting thing to note are the full paths, its also not possible to choose a keyword to use to filter, as they have injected as many words and user names and document locations as you can think of on this.. including but not shown here Kaaza and popular Torrent sites along with cute user names such as GodSmack, Patsy, Merry Christmas, MP3, Napster..etc.. to get the results to show for any search. 

Now as you look at this and keep in mind that the Majority of users of MX would like to use it to share and find files without being bombarded with annoying and DOS attacking fake files.
 
If your on secondary and looking for files without the DLL GOOD LUCK!
If your on secondary and just chatting and sharing files for others to get, GOOD LUCK with them staying and finding them.
If your on secondary and not chatting or sharing or searching your not using MX and yes the hosts file would be great.

If your on primary and sharing files and searching without using the DLL GOOD LUCK!
If your on primary and just chatting sharing files for others, again.. good luck and enjoy the DOS attacks on the hosts file!

Simply using peerguardian can not protect as often and as well as the DLL, I also agree they block lots of innocent traffic that has nothing to do with government agents and spys.. just some average joe on a Time Warner connection that BlueTack folks don't like So good luck to that poor user trying to get some files or find a chat room of a Hosts file user.

I am not arguing with anyone .. its just that by comparison this fix is superior to a hosts file, its better for the network then a hosts file, its easier to use then a hosts file, it will filter fakes by ip instead of by keyword exclusions, it doesn't require a rewrite for cache changes, it keeps the secondary flooders from using your bandwidth and connection to upload these, its monitored and backed up, its simple to install, it doesn't use the same file as any third party applications, it works on every operating system that runs WinMX, its been highly scrutinized for any strange activity and its just amazing to me to see folks that still think that the hosts file could be considered as a comparison to this and that its 'bad' for the network to encourage the majority of users to use it.

[Scyre]

Well said me Here!

That picture may very well educate a lot of people to the danger of trusting the old filtering tricks. It is growing very obvious that newer techniques are needed, and that trying to stand the pie patch up as a comparison to the dll is like comparing a yugo to a lamborghini and saying "I can outrun you anyday in this! A Yugo is just as advanced! I just don't drive it as fast because of legal reasons..."

Facts are on the table, and although people can try to pick everything apart from "How do we know we won't get shut down if KM is mad" to "How do we really know the flooders are really causing much of a problem" to "I think that pg2 and -user is just as good", the truth is we have a good solution for the problem right now, and people need to use it. When something else just as effective comes along, then I will support that too.

But I cannot support using a joke of a fix, and telling people they are protected. That's exactly what the pie team is doing to users.

It's like saying "Hey we can install this door for you. I know it doesn't include a lock, but it's ok, you are protected. Just hang a sign on the door that says 'no bad people allowed' and everything will be just fine. We think you should avoid getting a door from the other store even though they have locks on them. You can get into serious legal trouble for keeping someone out of your house. Besides, our note is just as good as a lock. We even have a 'magic formula' that tells you precisely how to write an effective note! See? We thought of everything for you "

yeah. right. sounds like a winner to me.  :shock:

That's where this has gone from competition into just plain old screwing people to save face. And it isn't right.

nuff sed.

Best regards and be good,
Scyre

[Zepposircarressith]

thats all the prof anyone needs good job  :shock:

[TheMacDaddy]

OK OK!!!!

For the most part i have kept silent over all this and gone about my work of helping connect to WinMX via the DLL fix.
I am not one for getting involved in disputes of this kind but i know feel the time is right to make a few points here...

As we all know theres 2 methods of connecting to the WPN and i have to say in my himble opinion the DLL fix is by far the most better way of connecting,
And why i hear you ask me ?

Well let me put it this way......

You go to town or your local store and u see a item you wish to by..
Now you can buy a playstation 1 for £20   or you can buy a playstation 2 for £20   what do you buy???

Now i know this gives no vaild reason as of yet as to what i mean so let me expand this a little for everyone

The Pie patch (although being a vaild method of connecting to WinMX) is very out dated now and requires alot of expalining on how to alter this when needs be and also what other programmes need to be run with this to make it a safe and viable method to connect to WinMX.I for one my self and Nobby can back me on this asked for a long time in a civil manner for Vladds site to include the note that PG2 was a must for any user who connected to WinMX via the Hosts file ,i didnt enter into petty wars of words and i still refuse to because in my heart all i wish is for WinMX to rebuild itself and to have a large user base that we can all enjoy and chat and share on.

Now a point i wish to make here as regards the Hosts file is most users on the net dont have a knowledge of programmes and how to use them unlike the people chatting here do.
Just take a look through the help section of this or Vladds froum....theres hundreds if not thousands of users out there who are 1.confused 2.unsure how to apply either fix 3.not even in the knowledge that WinMX is still up and running.

I see daily alot of users who come to myself or WinMxworld room and i would say Vladds room to asking why they cant upload or download on WinMx even though they have a green light saying there connected
I also know that 50% of these users cant use WinMX correctly purely because they have windows F/Wall on
And we are expecting these people to understand how to use PG2 in the correct manner to help them keep WinMX free from fake files and flooding?????

Come on please all !!!!!!  lets get real here,
We are all ok because we understand how to use either patch with what ever other programmes would be needed for either fix
But we make up i would guess  1% of the user base.
now as i said theres 2 methods of getting your WinMx connected again

1.Hosts file

And what else is needed here
A.Hosts file
B.A knowledge of how to alter this file due to cache changes (and dont give me its just a text file as you and i know this but your average joe user dont)
C.A knowledge of how to first get PG2 second a knowledge of how to install PG2  third a knowledge of where to get the block list from (which got get updated as fast as the DLL fix  forth a knowledge of how to apply the block lists to PG2 fifth a knowledge of how to keep your block lists updated to keep your connect to WinMX free from flooders abusing your connection to the WPN for their own means.

2.The DLL fix
A.a knowledge of where to get this fix from
B.a knowledge of how to install this fix

And as far as i see it thats it for the DLL fix so you see why i feel the DLL is more simple to use then the Hosts file.

You state Gnarly that a second user does not get affected by using the hosts file in this manner
but all it takes is this one person to tell one other person that

HEY I USE THE HOSTS FIX AND I AM RUNNING GREAT
this other user then gets the same said fix but runs it as a primary connection and of course because user 1 has never had to use PG2 due to them being a secondary connection dont pass on that the new primary user should be using PG2 and we are back to square 1

Its time to face the truth

We have a network here we can all use where to be honest i believe were lucky at all to have a network left
We should be supporting these people who have given there time of there own free will
not tring to keep throwing up road blocks and being stubbon just because we all know one fix had supassed the other but we dont want to go upsetting the apple cart by saying this is now true

I for one would love Vladd and all his friends to help out here in someway,even though i am 99.9% sure this will never happen

And as for all this crap about one person should not hold all the power
All i can say to this is Bollocks
And i am sorry for the out burst
But KM must be onr of the most twisted people to ever grace gods green earth if this is his motive...
And why?
Well lets put it this way
If KM as people wish to claim wants to close down this network and has wanted to for years as people claim
Then why oh why did he even bother to help get the network back up and running when it was shut down by frontcode
Then why oh why does he still to this day some 9 months later keep on giving his own free time to build a better and safer fix for winmx
Then why oh why does he still countine to provide caches to let us all connect to Winmx
Now you can all say its cause he is so twisted that he can and maybe your right only time will tell,but for me if i had such a hate for this network as you claim he has then i wouldnt of even lifted a finger to help rebuild this network i would of just sat there and said thanks frontcode for doing my job for me

So i ask you all this

USE YOUR COMMON KNOWLEDGE AND LETS MOVE FORWARD AGAIN WITH WINMX STOP BRINGING UP POINTS THAT DONT EVEN BEAR THINKING ABOUT,STOP WITH ALL THE DIRT DIGGING (I AM SURE MOST OF US HAVE SOMETHING IN OUR PASTS WE WISH TO HIDE),STOP CLAIMING THE HOSTS FIX IS STILL A VIABLE FIX (because even though it allows you to connect to WinMX it needs alot of work).

Theres a change in the winds i see and alot of peoples feathers are ruffled because they have missed the boat
Swallow your pride and you all know who i mean and lets get WinMX bk up to where it belongs

[..Ñøßߥ..]

But KM must be one of the most twisted people to ever grace gods green earth

Sorry Mac, i couldn't resist 

[GnarlySnarly]

Gnarly You can make exceptions to every statement made anywhere but the facts are clear enough.

hehe  I do have a knack for noting overlooked exceptions it is true.  But that's what being objective is about.  Objecting

PG2 is not the best solution for use with the blocklist in its current state, the speeding up a few months ago of IP rotation was a warning and so was the multiple drives/ file paths seen last week, we have chosen not to hide our heads in the sand and relying on IF,s helps no one.

'in its current state' - you are starting to qualify your statements finally.  That's a good thing.

I know PG2 is not the 'best' but for some uses, it may be the best we have.  I tried it, and immediately found bugs and design deficiencies, as is my nature.  I forwarded my observations to the author/dev team and left them to look after it.  They said at least some of the issues would be addressed in a future version, though I haven't checked back in a while to see what progress they have made with it.

I will grant KM his due.  He does actively maintain his project of the day.  And, be it reluctantly or not, he does give thought to feedback.    More than that, he is proactive, not just reactive.

I hope this picture from your post clears up the mystery of what was or was not said regarding the flooder blocking being effective.

It is still recorded as when I posted it.  And it was recorded again to expose you taking my words out of context and changing their meaning.  how does a snippet, still taken out of context, clear things up?  Do you seriously not understand?  or are you merely trying to twist the words still?

This is the exact text of my original post:

The DLL protects only winmx and only against a few known fake file flooder IPs.  It does nothing to filter out the numerous corporate domains owned by RIAA/MPAA types like sony, disney etc that can and are being used by their net cops to track down those who they claim are sharing 'their intellectual property'.

Yes.. it does contain the sentence that you made an image of, which says "The DLL protects only winmx and only against a few known fake file flooder IPs."  That's what I said and I stand by it as being 100% true.  Reading it in the context of the paragraph makes it even more clear how it was meant, even though it remains true and clear on its own, out of that context.

No where did I say what you claimed I said in your initial reply to it.

Your statement that the dll  blocks "only a few" of the fake flooders is pure ignorance, demonstrating you have not even tested it, it blocks 100% of them

I may not be an english grammer major.. but I think my sentence is properly structured.

Nowhere did I suggest the DLL blocked only a few of the fake file flooders.  Nowhere.  Your rewording of my statement gives this false perception.

I said:  "The DLL protects only winmx and only against a few known fake file flooder IPs."  and that is 100% true.

I did not say, as you claimed I did:  "The DLL protects only winmx and only against a few [of the] fake file flooder IPs."  BIG difference.

What I said effectively was:  "The DLL protects only winmx and only against a few IPs, [those of] known fake file flooder."  And 100% true.

It protects only against a few IPs.  I have seen the list.  It is rather small.  It is just a few, a small number of IPs.  A few compared to what?  I NEVER said it was  just a few of the total number of known fake file flooder IPs, as you claimed, as if to say that there were lots of known fake file flooders that were not on the list.  I NEVER said that.  Rather, I said 'a few' compared to all of the IPs on other huge p2p blocklists.  Get it.  The next sentence in my original post made that even more clear if there is any lingering doubt.


As your bold assertion that the DLL 'blocks 100% of the fake file flooders'... Really?  When?

I just don't see how you can claim that with a straight face.  How can you be so certain you have detected the IP of EVERY single fake file flooder on WPN at any given moment, at every moment?  Even IF you did, isn't there some delay between when the flooder came online and when you detected it?  And after you have detected it, isn't there some delay before the IP is vetted and added to the blocklist?  And isn't there some delay from the time such an IP is added to the blocklist until the DLL user's system gets the updated IP listings?  Are you really suggesting that there are no fake file flooders unknown to you at any given moment?  And that DLL blocks even those unknown or those known but not yet on the blocklist that has been fed to a DLL users system.

I admit that the DLL coupled with aggressive fake file flooder detection and blocklist maintenance seems to be a breakthrough, the latter being more significant I think.  At this early stage of the game, I think WPN is better off for the creation of the DLL.  I am not denying that.  But I do object to over the top, unqualified, unfounded claims, such as the above.

[GhostShip]

Gnarly I,ll let you into a secret old friend, the blocklist is updated 24hrs a day by the team, it does not stop being updated while folks sleep, others take over this important role, thats why I can be 100% confident.

Test it out and see for yourself.

The detection methods used are various but all you ever see are the current flooders on that list, many other macrovision servers than appear are regularly scanned for advanced activation activity, proactive as you say.

You can argue all day and night but the reality of the situation is even if folks got waylaid with a blocklist update macrovision has a small and shrinking window of opportunity to continue attacking this network, something I hope you approve of.

While I may not have taken all of your paragraph into account I felt as many did that you where making a claim that is incorrect, the screenclip shows this claim, I still think its incorrect as you put a full stop after it rather than expanding the definition of your claim , thus "," as I do myself.

Please dont waste your time further as I disagree with the claim made that I showed as being made, we will agree to disagree.

If you would like to know of a method that will instantly give you the IP,s of 100% of the networks fake file flooders then please feel free to pm me and I will demonstrate why I am so confident and suprise you.

[KM]

it does indeed currently filter 100% of the macrovision flooders, so it can quite honestly be claimed that it does so - we can be sure that we have detected them because our detection methods simply do not allow any to be missed, if it connects to the WPN to flood, it can be detected by us... and as for delays, once one is online it is nearly always picked up extremely quickly (an hour at the most), and there is no huge delay "vetting", someone has been reading too many "we need huge groups of people with long mettings and lots of paperwork" suggestions... when a flooder is detected it is blocked simple as that, and the delay for getting it to patch users can be adjusted but is currently a maximum of 6 minutes

however i wouldn't expect you to know much about flooders, seems we are the only ones who have a clue? even after all of the posts we have made telling people things trying to educate there are still comments made by those people who refuse to listen that are simply stupid to say the least

<SimulatedPersonNeedingHelp> hi, i need help, when i search for things i get lots of fake results, how do i get rid of them? i am searching for brave william longhorn
<cut out for briefness sake, but basically a load of banning and censorship>
<{SCC} ~¤£ôv뮤Gï®|¤~> by using PeerGuardian, and use -user  so Km, drop it

followed by another ban of course, what more would be expected?

you'll notice the example search i used was the one used in the previous screen shots, figured i might as well give them a chance by using a search term we have already specifically told them about

[chuck]

This is what separates WinMX World from sites like Vladd44. People are allowed to post no matter what , and their post are addressed. NO deleting moving hiding locking just good old debating.

 Knarly,s  post would have been deleted or hid if on that other forum.

 From the very start of the Mx server being taken off line The pie team have only been concerned with only the chat end of mx. First they asked not to down load i understand the not over burdening the server and all but it wasn't till the users made it known they wanted to download that Pie changed from its all  about friendship and chat to downloading.

 So the host file is made for people like Knarly if i understand what he said here (And as you well know I tested the early versions of the v3 DLL patch.  I'm even using it right now on one of my systems.  I don't need it or its new features, as I seldom search and download over winmx and usually connect as a secondary.  host files are fine for such usage.  but you never seem to admit that.)

 So i guess if all you want to do is chat and don't care that you open the wpn to fake files and flooding if you run primary, then the host file is all you need.

 I still run Proto Wall and a full block list on my computer but i have 4 gig's of ram and a fast cpu so that's no biggie. Others may not have the extra ram to run allot of other programs and a full block list does cut down on allot of the net when you surf.
 
 The idea of the Dill and Winmx is great you can connect to the WPN and block the fake files with one program and not worry about updating the block list each day and just using the ip's for the fake and flooders in mx does not cut down of the sites you surf too. Yes i know i can pick what list i run in porto Wall but i just load them all lol someone said bigger is better i forget who.

 I'm sorry i don't see a reason to even argue about Dill Or Pie , Pie has nothing to offer the user at all . they are both free one does it all for you (The DILL), the other (PIE) you need to run 2 programs and you need to update the block list often uses more ram just to get what the DILL does.

 All i ask is what does the pie host file do to help and protect the WPN? I cant think of anything.

 And as far as trust goes I trust someone that is open to debate on any forum as Km and all that work on the DILL patch are. They don't need to hide delete or lock a post from the users in answer to a question because the DILL stands up to all Questions . You only hide , delete and lock a thread when you have no answer to the question.

[WOMBAT]

Well Hallo Everyone On Boths Sides Of The Fence. I'm Afraid I Find It
Hard To Stay Awake Certain Parts Of The Day, Without Expanding On
The Same Old Same Old. So To Coin A Phrase Brought Up In This
Thread Somewhere Lets Be Proactive And Stop Pouring Salt In The
Same Old Wounds.

If You Find It Hard To Understand The Admiration And Devotion That
Users Have For KM And The Gang Then Please Feel Free To Use Your
50/50 Or Phone A Friend Or Any Other Lifeline You May Need To Get
You To Understand.

I For One And Probably 99% Of Users On This Forum Have The Utmost
Trust And Thankfulness For What These Good People Have Done For
The WPN And Us. We Are Also Grateful To Vladd And Any Other Bodies
That Have And Do Contribute To The Network In A Helpful, Constructive
And Positive Proactive Way.

What I, And More Than Likely, The Other Users Don't Want Or Don't Need
Is The Constant Bickering And He Said She Said Bullshit. Really, We Don't
Care. All We Care About Is That The Network Is Alive And Working. What
We Need Is 24 / 7 Help To Fix Any Problems We Have. We Are Provided
That Via This Site With A Lot Of Expertise From KM, Me Here, Ghostship,
Bearded Blunder, Nylly And Lots Of Other Little Elves Entirely Free Of
Charge.

I Remember Seeing A Gentleman Standing At Traffic Lights In 1996 With
A Sandwich Board Stating The World Will End On January 7th, 2000. As
You Realize We've Passed That Date And The World Is Still Going. So We
Don't Need Purveyors Of Doom & Gloom. We Will Know When The World
Is Ending Without Anyone Telling Us.

This Is A POSITIVE PROACTIVE HELPFUL FRIENDLY SITE. If You Feel
You Can Help And Contribute Positively To The Rebuilding Of The WPN
Then I'm Sure We Would All Welcome You With Welcome Arms As We
Need All The Help We Can Get. However, If All You Can Contribute Is He's
Got A Bigger Better One Than Me, Then I Can get That Kind Of Interaction
From My Thirteen Year Old Son Without Coming Here To Read It.

So PLEASE If You Feel The Need To Post This Kind Of Thread Then
Could You Take It To Another Site As I'm Sick of Reading About It.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx WE LIKE AND TRUST KM xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[GnarlySnarly]

gnarly: please can you explain to me how i use -user to remove all of the fake results again? i must be doing it wrong...
put it in the second box is how they say to do it, right?

Not you too KM.   

If you look at my posts, going back months, you'll see I have consistently challenged the idea that ALL flooding was done from a \user\ folder. and that I recommended more sophisticated FFF detection methods and filters should be created.  Even if it was their sole FFF profile at the time, I predicted more than -user would be needed, since if most users started filtering with it, that they could change it quite easily.

I am glad that the means of FFF detection does not rely on something that simple and so easily defeated as -user.  My point was is simply that much or most? of the FFF is still using that \user\ folder.  Maybe because so many newbies use the default folders also to share from?  Maybe they are relying on many to not use the -user filter so as to not filter out some perhaps significant portion of legitimate search results?  The fact that your current DLL can filter the chaff files without filtering legitimate files some users may be sharing with 'user' in the pathname is very good. 

As to that example, thanks.  That's exactly what I asked for.  well not exactly.  All i asked for was the search words.  you didn't have to go to all that trouble of making a picture.  I can read. 

[GnarlySnarly]

(Keep in mind please that I have a modified version of the 3.0 patch that allows me to see IPs in the searches in order to keep the block list up to date.)

!!!!  Well, great..  I asked for exactly something like that months and months ago.  You've been holding out!  where's my copy? 

That speaks well the the ability to quickly match IPs to the fake file flooders, but just how do you detect or determine which files are being flooded?  Just follow the what's new in music and movies pages?   As I have stated, I'm on WPN mainly as a fileserver and seldom download, and much less the latest pop music and new movies releases, so I do not see fake files unless someone tips me off to them.  But I do enjoy playing detective when i have twiddle time.

Simply using peerguardian can not protect as often and as well as the DLL, I also agree they block lots of innocent traffic that has nothing to do with government agents and spys.. just some average joe on a Time Warner connection that BlueTack folks don't like So good luck to that poor user trying to get some files or find a chat room of a Hosts file user.

Such unqualified statements like that are what I have been objecting to, from both sides of this damn FUD fight.

Sure, PG2 has the capability to use multiple blocklists simultaneously.  For some user's, that's part of its attraction.  But to say simply that it blocks lots of innocent traffic, as if by fixed design is wrong.  If PG2 is only using the same FFF blocklist that the DLL relies on, as compiled and maintained by the committed WG team, it blocks no more innocent users that the DLL does.

Yes, some users may want to frustrate industry spies who are monitoring and logging what people are sharing over p2p like winmx.  And additional blocklists may be loaded into PG2 to block known industry domains.  Your point though that IF such a list is loaded into PG2, some 'innocent' users would be blocked is ill-founded.  Yes, they MAY be blocked from connecting to the systems running as WPN primaries with PG2 AND such p2p industry blocklists loaded, but that can't block anyone from connecting to WPN.  Not unless every winmx user used both PG2 [or similar] AND the huge p2p blocklist.  It may prevent them from downloading from a PG2 + p2p-blocklist protected user.

And for PG2 users who think that running it with the latest p2p and corporate and government blocklists really protects against such spies, you are sadly mistaken.  Certainly at least some of these spies are using commin public ISP services, mixing in with millions of others users on such services.  They can't be blocked without blocking those ISPs.  And that can't be done, without killing the whole idea of open access.

So IMO, the hoopla of PG2 protecting against spies with its huge blocklists creates nothing but a false sense of security.  it may provide some protection and frustrate some spy activities, but I doubt it has much overall efficacy for this concern.  If they can browse you and search for files you are sharing, they can log that and your IP.  In many places, that has been deemed sufficient to obtain a search warrant and come knocking.

The big battle lies elsewhere I am afraid.

I am not arguing with anyone .. its just that by comparison this fix is superior to a hosts file, its better for the network then a hosts file, its easier to use then a hosts file, it will filter fakes by ip instead of by keyword exclusions, it doesn't require a rewrite for cache changes, it keeps the secondary flooders from using your bandwidth and connection to upload these, its monitored and backed up, its simple to install, it doesn't use the same file as any third party applications, it works on every operating system that runs WinMX, its been highly scrutinized for any strange activity and its just amazing to me to see folks that still think that the hosts file could be considered as a comparison to this and that its 'bad' for the network to encourage the majority of users to use it.

There maybe caveates I don't yet know about, as I haven't been able to test v3 on a win98 machine yet.  AFAIK, the version that preceded v3 would not work on win98 with v3.54b4, which combination i run on 2 of my 3 file servers.  well, 1 of 2 at the moment since my main server crapped out a few days ago and I haven't pulled it apart yet to see if it is salvageable.

Since v3 is so new, I would be reluctant to declare it perfect, flawless, and THE solution for everyone, no matter what version of windows or winmx.  No matter what other p2p or chat programs one is using.  Time will tell.  Based on what I have seen and read, I do think it is a milestone and a huge benefit for winmx users in general.  I agree with most of the claims you make for it above.

But others have made mindless, exaggerated claims for it and made false claims against hosts lists, be it the obsolete PIE list or not.  It is not the fact that v3 DLL has some great new functions to offer, but that some have gone overboard with half-truths and outright lies to attack hosts list users and PIE team as if THEY were the enemy instead of the corrupt, criminal media moguls.  I deem those trolls who continue with unfounded and over the top claims for or against either 'patch' to be serving the interests of the RIAA/MPAA types, and not the interests of a stronger WPN community.  So I object.  to such divisive trolling.

[TheMacDaddy]

GnarlySnarly  how can i put this in simple words as all this is now like reading a book...
You get 3 lines to the story on each page and 40 lines of this and that

Use hosts file without PG2 then flooders and fakes will exist on this network

End of story i thank you and good night

You see it dont matter what this does and what that does all we have here is excuse after excuse after excuse
I dont really care for this anymore
I myself see the v3 DLL as the far Superior fix for Winmx
This is what i will use and is what i will carry on using
I dont care for this does this and that does that and dont twist my words crap as all this is now past a joke and you are in the relems of my argument for arguments sake

And if you believe i am wrong well thats you decision as you so readily make up your own mind and have your own views then so shall i

[Me Here]

Yes I have been holding out on the general public however I and the blocking team, have had this capability for nearly a year now, which is why my begging for folks to just ask me 'how good this is' when the debate began about blocking in general.

I think some of your questions are better left to pm Gnarly as I have said to many, I love to talk about this, its important to me, I am willing to teach (tried to get folks from PIE involved long ago), and the details of how are also to be kept out of general posts, folks that know me and I know.. pm me with questions I'll do my best to answer them.


'Simply' That is what I said and the average user that installs peerguardian using either the guide located on our site or V's site will show you to install the other various lists.  So if you think I am picking as straws with that explanation then to you I would say 'Ditto'..

Its not an unqualified statement at all, in fact its not only plausible as a fictional situation, its happened on more then one occasion that i can quote.  I personally don't use Peer Guardian except in certain situations but if I ran it at all times I would not use any list except WMW BL, this is however not the case for the average users.  How you and I run it has no influence on this situation as we are not the avg user.

The further of your statements I totally agree with.  Peerguardian and the like are not programs that are going to protect you in some legal way from anyone.

Hey, I didn't say it was perfect yet.. as you say time will tell, most of us are responsible enough here to use the word Best available rather then Perfect.. 
Even though, we are damn proud of KM and his work on this little beast as we should be..

[GhostShip]

I admit to feeling sorry for Gnarly, out of illogical fear he is prepared to come here and talk as if he has experience with the new patch and rubbish those making claims for it, but has not himself tested it.

I think that shows his allegiances and why he is fast losing respect here.

[Scyre]

I suppose he could be right...pg2 could be just as effective with the same blocklist, and if you could manage to update it every hour or so...That's considering worst case senerio it takes an hour to identify a flooder and the full 6 minutes to update the users, so you would have to update pg2 every hour and 6 minutes just to keep it as useful....But wait...you would have to adjust a blocklist for pg2 first and then it would be available for the user...

But with the dll doing the work for you, why would someone want to?


I know this is a VERY controversial matter I am about to suggest, but I am gonna say it anyway:

If something doesn't change soon, I vote that the network gets split. One for those of us who are tired of the flooding and want to be rid of it, and One for those who insist that the pie patch is the ultimate answer to the meaning of life.

This could be accomplished very easily and could guarantee at least some of us are not subjected to the ignorance of relying on outdated ideas any longer. As I said, I know it is very controversial, but it needs to be considered.

Best regards and be good,
Scyre

[GnarlySnarly]

I admit to feeling sorry for Gnarly, out of illogical fear he is prepared to come here and talk as if he has experience with the new patch and rubbish those making claims for it, but has not himself tested it.

Where did that silliness come from?

Its a matter of record here that I did test it.  I tested the beta before it was released as a final and I tested the final, and plainly stated i was running it.  If you'll recall, I posted my objections to it trashing my hosts file on install. And some other things too IIRC.  All I said recently is i didn't test it yet on my win98 systems. I did test it on my xp system.  -- slow down.. seems you are missing some significant details when you read.

regardless, I was not so much focused on the DLL.. As I have stated, I think it is a milestone and a big advantage overall for WPN.  I was primarily responding to the irresponsible, rabid rhetoric trashing the use of hosts files.  The community is not served by spreading unfounded claims, pro or con.  KM has a right to be proud of this work.  and nothing wrong with describing its advantages.  But in hyping the DLL, there is no need to snipe at the alternatives.  especially by making overbroad assertions.

[bughunter]

gnarly..........what is it that you dont get...........there is no place for a hosts file solution on winmx..........me_here clearly demonstrated why a hosts file is absolutely useless,and there is simply no getting around that........
no ne from pie has ever disputed the damage a host file is doing to the netrwork, and yet you and others seemingly either turn a blind eye or just ignore the facts.........
there is only one solution for winmx and thats the dll........and your assertion that it trashed your hosts file is a joke.....as the dll doesnt and never has made any alterations to the existing hosts file......again as i stated you show your lack of understanding on how the dll works.........
but lets be clear we as in winmxworld are determined to return winmx to a clean state ie no fakes or flooding or any of riaas bullshit........
users will be encouraged to move over to the dll.......and those that refuse will simply be locked out of winmx......you forget who controls the wpn.........this is not even open to discussion.........vladd and pie and those that choose to support this sad lot are finished
THIS IS NOT A PERSONNAL ATTACK ON VLADD OR PIE,DESPITE WHAT YOU MAY THINK.......but we intend to take back control of winmx from riaa and as such a zero tollerance policy regarding riaa and how they connect is being adopted.....so you can either be part of the solution or be part of the problem........either way you will be dealt with accordingly..........

[Mick832]

"users will be encouraged to move over to the dll.......and those that refuse will simply be locked out of winmx......you forget who controls the wpn.........this is not even open to discussion.........vladd and pie and those that choose to support this sad lot are finished
THIS IS NOT A PERSONNAL ATTACK ON VLADD OR PIE,DESPITE WHAT YOU MAY THINK.......but we intend to take back control of winmx from riaa and as such a zero tollerance policy regarding riaa and how they connect is being adopted.....so you can either be part of the solution or be part of the problem........either way you will be dealt with accordingly.........."


It is posts like this and a continual outpouring of abuse that ruins the reputation of the people here who actually answer questions and try help WinMX users.

I guess I will be next to cope some abuse, but bughunter, your comments dont help anything.