A year ago...

[Lagerlout666]

I would freely give you my details if you asked and made it clear to host patch users that i was helping them connect, but both u and i know that will never happen, and i dont know how u work that out, ive had this software just short of 48 hours and i have made a host file patch that connects via me and me only and have everything running through that at the moment as a test and they include Winmx,Robo & shareguard, so im sorry but as for it not being able to work with pie user's im affraid ure wrong.

An what is more scary is that in less than 48 hours i have progressed further than what pie has done to date by the fact that the peer cache server program i have blocks flooders from even connecting to winmx which is a dam site more than what pie does, even if the test patch i have made doesnt.

[Lagerlout666]

Of this topic and as for the server, the new beta patch loads the channel list in 2-3 seconds by dling from ure primry and the peer cache, does this work with the new software or is it just the one u have KM, was just wondering if this had been looked over maybe as i assume the beta will make it past that stage at some point in the future, and if its just one or 2 servers running the support for this feature will they handle the traffic from every WMW user running the new patch, i know this is prob abit off yet but was a thought floating threw my mind

[SamSeeSam]

by telling lies about your list being more accurate.

Then prove that Pg is better.... A large list does not mean better protection. The flooders keep changing the Ip's continuously. Pg can update only about once 24 hrs and include all the new flooders. The dll does that in 5 mins, 24x7. The dll aslo has other features which are totally absent in the pie patch.
Why must users suffer the curse of the host files with pg2 which gobbles up cpu like anything, when there is a perfectly viable connection method avaiable? Has Pie ever given them a choice?

Cheers

[GhostShip]

it seems Ome is not in possesion of anything even resembling common sense, I would like him to show where and when PG lists are more accurate than our own, well Ome  ?

I really dont know why I waste time on Ome when he is just wasting useful time that should go to help users , perhpas its because he has been doing a lot of work at mxcontrol and I though that would mean he is a sensible person able to think logicaly 

[KM]

@G/¥\Á Tîñý4èvå [W/¥\W even if you would tell your IP, it would be useless to hosts patch users. None of KM's caches gives a proper connetion to those users.

since when? are you now claiming that a hosts file somehow messes up the data sent by a cache and breaks winmx? are you now claiming that pie users can't use winmx because they are unable to use peer caches because a hosts file modifies the data and corrupts it? I think you'll find a lot of users claiming otherwise...

@ KM
I've made my points and you undermined and still are undermining the efforts of the hosts patch users to block flooder by using peer guardian, by telling lies about your list being more accurate.

WinMXWorld Block List
Purpose: to block all winmx flooders
Number of flooders missed that are not on the list: 0
Number of innocent users on the list: 0

Peer Guardian lists
Purpose: to block all anti-p2p
Number of flooders that are not on the main list as of 2am today (right after this magical "it's as up to date as it can be"): 282
Number that are missing from both the main list and this "Temp list" that you are no doubt going to claim is what people should use (even though hardly anybody even knows it exists):269 (this "much better" temp list only has 13 extra flooders on it, next to the thousands of real users)
Number of other anti-p2p organisations that are not on the list: unknown, millions?
Number of innocent users blocked by it: Millions (shall we say 87 million?)

I think it's quite clear that a list with 100% of what it claims to block on the list and not a single incorrect block is much more accurate than a list that is missing most of what it claims to block and blocking millions of things it claims to not block, even without taking in to account the fact that peer guardian takes ages to update

@bughunter, if you would try to put a little more effort in reading posts and writing some understandable english, thereby would say some sensible things and not type like a parrot in a zoo, I might take the effort to read what you have to say.

That's just lazyness, most of his posts can be translated in to english without too much effort

Of this topic and as for the server, the new beta patch loads the channel list in 2-3 seconds by dling from ure primry and the peer cache, does this work with the new software or is it just the one u have KM, was just wondering if this had been looked over maybe as i assume the beta will make it past that stage at some point in the future, and if its just one or 2 servers running the support for this feature will they handle the traffic from every WMW user running the new patch, i know this is prob abit off yet but was a thought floating threw my mind

The fast list in the beta patch uses a web server for that, although things could change for any final release I expect that it will continue using a web server because of the large size of the list (past a certain size you have to keep the connection open and control the sending of the data etc, with a small file like the block list the cache software doesn't need to do that, it can simply send the list to the networking buffers and close the socket and allow the system to take care of sending it)

[Me Here]

@ Ome
That is not KM's list it is a WinMx World list in which I am in charge of maintaining.  Its more accurate for the flooders that are currently on WInMX Peer Network any day, any hour, any minute then Bluetacks list.

As per the Websters Online Dictionary:
Accurate
Adjective

1. Conforming exactly or almost exactly to fact or to a standard or performing with total accuracy; "an accurate reproduction"; "the accounting was accurate"; "accurate measurements"; "an accurate scale".

2. Exact in performance or amount; strictly correct; "a precise instrument"; "a precise measurement".

You seem to be missing some important details here Ome.  Let me enlighten you a bit. 
To be an accurate list it has to be kept up with any new additions as soon as possible, if you think in some alternate universe that 24 hours is better then 5 mins,  I would love to read the fiction novel when your done.

To be an accurate list it has to be kept free of false entries and entries that are not a threat to the WinMX Peer Network.  This list that BlueTack uses is a Joke to me.  Once you get on the list as an IP you NEVER GET OFF... NEVER.  We have changed IPs and Hosts of this site plenty of times.. do you think the FBI, Churches, Government Agencies, RIAA, MPAA, Potential Macrovision entities can not change IP addresses?
What do you think happens to those IP addresses when they are not being used by the above named agencies any more?  Do they just stop being used by anyone?  No they are added to pools and a magical thing called 'Re-Allocation' happens  :shock:  Yes its wonderful thing called re used by other users, small ISPs, and innocent folks hosting caches for a p2p network. 

The Bluetacks lists are not only NOT ACCURATE by definition they are Pathetic.. I would be ashamed of myself if thats the best I could do ..

[wonderer]

KM, you very well know what a hosts file does and you also very well know if a non dll user tries to get connect information from your caches all he/she gets is useless information.

If the winmxgroup blocklist is included in the bluetack update, you can add any list, local and by url, I don't see why i should miss any of the flooder IP winmxworld includes in their bloklist, in fact, there is much more blocked than "adviced" by winmxgroup.
What harm will that do? As said before, If the bloklist is changing every 5 minutes, I would beleave it would be very good, but, as I have noticed and mentioned before, in spite of my efforts to update much more often than once a day, day's go by with no updates on the winmxgroup update list. It seems to be not so very dynamic after all.

Tiny read my posts more closely, a plain hosts patch user cannot connect through your cache, even if you would like it.

[KM]

KM, you very well know what a hosts file does and you also very well know if a non dll user tries to get connect information from your caches all he/she gets is useless information.

did some idiot make it up and you blindly believed whatever they said without checking? or did you make it up yourself?

* KM wonders how many people are actually stupid enough to believe anything as stupid that can easily be seen by anyone to be false

btw anyone who does believe whatever they get told by people who have admitted to not having a clue what they are talking about, and wishes to ignore the hard facts that they can see for themselves... did you know that you have to send me your life savings to use winmx? go do it now...

* KM waits for his bank account to fill up with a few £ from each of the pie members

If the winmxgroup blocklist is included in the bluetack update, you can add any list, local and by url, I don't see why i should miss any of the flooder IP winmxworld includes in their bloklist, in fact, there is much more blocked than "adviced" by winmxgroup.

If peer guardian includes the winmxworld list and is set to the fastest update time it physically allows then you will be taking up to 24 hours before you are *able* to block them, on default settings it would be 48 hours, and of course by default users don't have that list added either

What harm will that do?

what harm is done by deliberately and knowingly reducing the size of winmx by thosands of users? i guess the pie mentality has always been "so what if we constantly lose users, let's not care about that, let's just spam and hope that we can get more new users than we lose"... a stupid policy to say the least

blocking more users doesn't make you "safer", it doesn't make things faster, it makes downloads slower, and does absolutely nothing for any "security"

can i ask the reason why you use any block lists at all? why not just make your own block list containing 0.0.0.0-255.255.255.255 and make yourself "more secure"? of course that list would actually make your system secure, by cutting off the internet, unlike bluetacks lists

As said before, If the bloklist is changing every 5 minutes, I would beleave it would be very good, but, as I have noticed and mentioned before, in spite of my efforts to update much more often than once a day, day's go by with no updates on the winmxgroup update list. It seems to be not so very dynamic after all.

what if the police thought that? well someone is only killed around here every few weeks, so we don't need to worry about it, if a murder in progress is reported let's just leave it few hours before responding, who cares if a faster response could save a life, we don't care, it's only every few weeks anyway

as stated, allowing flooding for even a few hours is not "just as good", the patch blocks all flooders all the time, the longest a flooder can stay running for before being blocked is a few minutes... you think that should be extended to be as crap and useless as peer guardian? i don't, and the users currently enjoying fake free results probably don't either

Tiny read my posts more closely, a plain hosts patch user cannot connect through your cache, even if you would like it.

i believe tiny did read your post, i believe you failed to read anyone else's post? like where tiny stated that he HAS connected using it with just a modified hosts file

[Bearded Blunder]

The only difficulty a hosts file user would have connecting using KM's caches or the user caches would be keeping their hosts files current to do so.. winmx contacts them & sends a very specific request, it has to in the nature of the protocol, the cache merely listens on certain ports for those requests & responds..

Anyone with the time to track the dynamic ips & edit system files constantly would have no trouble whatsoever connecting using them, in fact for some considerable time i've been connecting my third party chat clients in exactly that way.. in short Ome you're talking complete nonsense (well i'm too polite to spell out exactly what you're talking) but claims KM's caches block hosts users are a simple Pie.. just as i would expect forom a member of MxLie

[wonderer]

Realy, it is getting funny in here,
Oke KM, I'm not an idiot and I don't say things I did not check myself. I must admit that I quit trying to connect to your caches a while ago, just because it failed every time, I promise you to check again.

You still don't get how I think to be up to date with peerguardian, I just included the https://www.winmxworld.com/files/block_list.txt to the files to check for updates, so I'm not waiting intill bluetack has taken the time to investigate and add the IP to their lists. In that I trust the winmxgroup doing a good job. This list is not in the default setup, but some of us are willing to share and educate knowledge, all for the good of the peer.
Funny you menion the range 0.0.0.0-255.255.255.255 wonder who mentioned that range first, but far to much effort, unplugging the ethernetcable would be as effective. O wait, wireless, than unplug the powercable, problem solved.

About waiting for your bank account to fill up with a few £ from each of the pie members, I'm afraid you will have to be patient and wait untill my account starts growing from the donations from the visitors of the rooms I host.

I feel sorry about the fact you only think of WinMx being flooded, Peergurdian does a good overall job and you are free to fine tune it.
Don't you think, that I and some others who have a sligthly different opinion about the best way of blocking than you have, don't deserve to be laughed at, or is KM's way the only right way?
The way you are kicking around at people who don't think your way because you tell them to is in no way convincing.

[KM]

ome, feel free to tell users the truth about their options, i think it would be something like this...?

A few random people who don't knw anything about winmx or how it works think that running peer guardian and using their huge block lists is a good idea, Those who actually know what they are talking about state that it is very bad, and that the winmxgroup patch is very helpful to the network

would that be accurate? or are you going to deny that you don't even know what a peer cache is, let alone knowing any of the details of now the network actually works...? (not the only pie member that talks like they are some kind of expert but doesn't even know the basics)

[wonderer]

Sure KM, thank you for promoting me to a Pie member, personaly I did not know anything about that and I doubt  you are having the rights to do so. Don't thonk the Pieteam knows about it either.
I also think you slightly undersestimate my knowledge which is not very smart of you.
If you would use all available blocklists you can find there is little left to do on the internet, so you will have to make your own selections.
One of the lists I thought to be usefull is the one of winmxworld unless you tell me of course that one is usless too.

I'm not quite random and I also know not only a little about WinMx or how it works, I know a little more about WinMx and how it works. I think peer guardian, if wisely used is not bad.
You should know technically what you are talking about, but still did not convince me of the superiority of your patch.
It is connecting users to the peer and therefor helpfull, very if you insist.
But the hosts does that too.
It is blocking flooder, so is peerguardian.

[KM]

a few minutes after the next flooder is added to the winmxworld block list do a "netstat -n" and check for the flooder hosted on your MX, which is not on any patched MXes

do a search for "real-no-fake" and look at the thousands of results you get, then do the same with my patch and see how many of those were fakes

...then try and claim that peer guardian is "just as good"

i am also aware that you had several very basic questions about what a peer cache is and what it does, i would suggest that you go ask someone who knows about winmx, there is some person called "ome_leo" who claims to know about winmx, did you try asking him to explain to you those basics of what a cache is and what it does? i know ghostship already gave you a brief overview, but you should really ask that "ome_leo" self-claimed expert

[Faithless_Sniper]

lol being sarcastic are we KM.

[GhostShip]

It would help if we all just stuck to the technical aspects of this matter so that then its clear whats being spoken about an we can discuss the merits of things by comparison.

I have had a discussion with Ome to clarify his position and that is that he agrees blocking is necessary but that he hais little trust in Kms work so that is the real reason it seems that he is unwilling to use the patch, this shows then that pies campaign to discredit KMhas worked a litle.

I,m pretty sure if another solution arrives that blocks and faster or pg was modified to update more often I,m sure Ome would use that ,I hope this demonstrates the fact that we do all want the same things mostly but just have different ways of trying to obtain it.

[wonderer]

KM if you just would stop twisting my words and make them look like lies, I did not say I'm an expert
I do not use the search function in WinMx, There are better ways to find the files, which does not mean I have no interest in blocking flooder.
A basic rule to learn something is not to go to someone who knows as much as you do or worse, who knows less..
It seems obvious to me that I know as much as Ome_Leo does so why would I ask him?

My unwillingness to use the dll has nothing to do with any campaign of pie if there would be a campaign which I don't know of.
It has to do with attitude, history and most of all the incompleteness. You are not save by just using the dll. It is just taking away the menace of unreal files.
Oh yes, almost forgot to mention, it connects you to the winmxgroup caches. I will stop saying, among other things.

[Faithless_Sniper]

The dll patch does the following in my eyes

* Hides Fakes files (By whatever means is uses)
* Blocks flooders by downloading the winmxgroup / winxmworld block list
* Connects users to the new caches

If i am wrong please do not edit my post correct me, if i am correct fair enough but if i am correct the dll patch does everything a users needs.

[KM]

KM if you just would stop twisting my words and make them look like lies, I did not say I'm an expert

"look like"? you openly stated "facts" which anyone can see are complete rubbish with not a shred of truth to them...

I do not use the search function in WinMx, There are better ways to find the files, which does not mean I have no interest in blocking flooder.

"well i'm not a winmx user" - then in don't expect to ever see you trying to post in anything winmx related? winmx is a p2p network, if you don't care about it because you don't use it - make that quite clear to everyone, state "as someone who doesn't care about winmx i think.... which is mostly wrong, but people who do care about winmx think .... which is correct"

It seems obvious to me that I know as much as Ome_Leo does so why would I ask him?

because you know little, and this "ome_leo" person tries to pretend he knows a lot?

It has to do with attitude, history and most of all the incompleteness.

attitude? you mean you would rather that the person running winmx was a politician who sat there talking crap with not a clue what is going on refusing to do anything at all? I'm sure there are a lot of people who like the fact that I actually do things - like restoring the network when frontcode went...
history? you mean a history of always stepping in when required to do what is best for the network, no matter how costly it is to myself? or you mean the history of always fighting against those who attack the network? would you also like to mention the history of this group now calling themselves "pie"? with the "child abuse" (i believe that is the politically correct term for raping children), amongst other things - very nice history they have
incompleteness? what is missing? i mean apart from the repeated demands you have made that i give you an attack tool that can shut down the entire network in a matter of minutes...

i know what is missing from mxlie - any knowledge of even the most basic things in winmx... hell what you consider to be "an expert" is someone who doesn't even know that "macrovison" are flooders... yes this sabre "expert" of yours who knows so much about how things work, as well as not even knowing how the cache that "he designed" even finds primaries, he also does not know that macrovision are flooders... how nice to know that you have nobody with even a slight clue about winmx... even those idiots at bluetack know that macrovision are anti-p2p (although that was probably more of a lucky guess on their part when picking out random companies)

If i am wrong please do not edit my post correct me

you're thinking of a different forum where they routinely edit posts without the author requesting it - that as only happened here 2 times as far as i can remember, once when it was stated in advance that i would add an answer to her next post if she refused to do it, and more recently when someones personal details were posted on here (both of those by me... i don't believe anyone else has edited any posts except to correct typos etc when requested by the author)

[bughunter]

why would anyone want to run a programme like pg2 that doesnt do as it claims...............
without winmxworlds blocklist added to pg2, pg2 is next to useless for winmx...........
and even with winmxworlds blocklist added to it pg2 doesnt stop fakes ,doesnt stop udp attacks,and doesnt stop denial of service,and doesnt stop ip harvesting of users on the network.......................
and yet somehow leo thinks this is aceptable and even a good thing for host file users,this is part of the whole deciet campaign carried out by pie over the last year,decieving users into thinking there safe, wat a load of crapola..........
the dll on the other hand blocks all forms of connection by those that are on the blocklist, hence zero fakes showing in searches,pg2 doesnt do that,
simply installing both the dll and hosts patch on different puters clearly shows the dll is far superior...........and its rediculous that anyone would susgest other wise....................
the other major problem with pg2 is that you have to wade thru 87 million ips and add the bulk of them to allow lists since the bulk of wat appears on thetre lists are legitamate users not riaa flooders..............you dont need to be einstein to figure out that riaa dont occupy 87 million ips so right off the bat pg2 sucks.............
and lets not forget RIAA are only on this network because of pie..............
even nobby says pg2 is only slightly better then no blocking at all.............hardly a great recommendation for pg2 is it.............
of course anyone is free to run wat ever they so choose .just dont think that by running pg2 with what ever blocklist makes you safe because it doesnt..............
the dll is so efficent at blocking riaa, that those that actually compile the winmxblock list have to use pie to connect to detect any new riaa flooders, that fact in its self should tell you something leo, just hope your smart enough to figure it out................

[GhostShip]

It has to do with attitude, history and most of all the incompleteness.

If we judged evrything on this standard Ome I am willing to bet nothing would satisfy those criteria, not even yourself , I have visited the dutch mx sites and know of many lies told there the same as the norweigan sites operated by unique, what happens in the minds of non-english users that operate pro pie forums/sites to make them believe english users cant read the posted lies ?

Honesty is in short something lacking when it comes to pie and its friends, if you disagree thats fine, I think all users should be heard rather than just lackies of the site owners.

Enjoy the freedom we defend here Ome, its a change from a pie run site