IMPORTANT !!! Please Remove PG Or Protowall

[GhostShip]

Folks after trying my best to get Blutack to see reason it seems I have failed in my mission, they have secretly added all winmx peer caches to their blocklists and so anyone using their list will not be able to conect to winmx this is unjustified and just downright wrong.

http://www.bluetack.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=15428

We need to stand firm and united on this issue and show them they cannot attack over half a million users secretly, we can do this by not using their software and passing on the news of the damage they are doing to WinMx and edonkey networks to other network users, we should all have a choice of what P2P we want to connect to and Blutack should have made their blocking clear and posted something approaching a valid reason before attacking WinMx users by stealth.

Does Blutack think they can do something the RIAA and Macrovision cannot ?

Please act now and remove or disable the programs listed above until they stop playing god with ordinary users who are unaware that Blutack are abusing their trust.

[wonderer]

Any other kind of firewall allowed or adviced?

[KM]

peer guardian and protowall are programs for blocking lists of IP Addresses, they are not firewalls...

[GhostShip]

Ome I,m sure you know its possible to remove the numbers from the list and how to do so, my advice to remove Peer Guardian is a general peice of advice for those of our users who may not be comfortable or able to editi the lists.

The problem is this, I know that the Blutak list that PG uses is blocking ourselves and edonkey servers, this is anti p2p and has lost my confidence and much of my trust in using this previously good  list.

We started our own list last year as Blutack did not and still do not have a tech who knows how to gather the flooder IP's, that operate on the winmx network, we on the other hand have demonstrated our tools in public view and shared the info with all.

As Blutack are not willing to explain why they are blocking the caches and even this website its believed they are either receiving poor advice or they have sold out, either way I dont think allowing them to damage mx is something I intend to join them in.

My advice is this if you are able to add our allow list as a regular update along with PG then please do so , if you like me have no trust in Blutak remove the other lists or the whole program , its your choice..

If your a host file users make sure you have our blocklist to at least be always nearly up-to-date with the flooders IP's, until Nobby releases his patch we are unable to help you more if your unwilling to use the  automatic dll patch.

[KM]

Anyone running winmx on primary should be using the up to date block lists from winmxworld, they should be checking for updates at least every 5 minutes and downloading as required - any longer is not effective blocking and is almost as good as useless

[wonderer]

Kind if firewall I said, and you might not know the edonkey servers involved are fake servers, mainly set up to gather userdata.
Kind of useless on the bluetack lists though, while most edonkey clients have their own IPblocking system.

Update every 5 minutes, oke, see if more changes will be seen than once an hour.

[KM]

no, it does contain some of the "fake" edonkey servers, along with a lot of "real" ones - very much like the fact that it contains 21 of the 303 macrovision flooders on dynamic IPs, and thousands of real winmx users

if macrovision did all of their changes on a monday, do you think that you should update every 7 days (as that is how often they change) - and do it on a sunday?

how often changes happen is irrelevant, when they do change it needs to be updated straight away

if they changed their IP Addresses every hour, and you updated once a day, then you are allowing flooders for 23 hours of the day - are you stating that you think it's perfectly fine to flood for 23 hours? i assume you are based on your claims that because they don't change too often it's perfectly fine for you to not check for updates and just keep flooding for 23 hours before your next check...

[wonderer]

Update every 5 minutes, oke, see if more changes will be seen than once an hour.

[KM]

did you miss the point? the fact that peer guardian isn't able to update every hour, let alone every 5 minutes?

[chuck]

 Funny this arguement is even going on. Its like saying lets all sale our cars and ride a horse. They both do the same thing get us from one place to the other. Just one does it better.

 Why run 2 programs when you do not have too? Why run a extra program that updates slower than the other? I cant speek for anyone other than me but id love to downgrade and run peerguardian and a host file.While im at it i may just start running windows me as well.

 As you can see now if a user isnt active in updateing the block list in peerguardian or protowall thay just may block themselves from more than fake files . People want things to get easyer not harder so only a fool would want to run a extra program keep up with all the ip's in the block list just to run WinMX.

 Need i remind all of us that there is a PR campaign going on now by pie to save face with the winmx users? I point back to this thread.

https://forum.winmxworld.com/index.php?topic=3291.15.html

 So we should all expect to see more false accusations .One can only wonder what their agenda is.We have all seen the last few weeks childish actions from some one not nobby, We all know he isnt a child and has a forum that he can control to voice his thoughts on. But if i was him id try to use a forum like this one that people use over one that isnt being used as much.

 Argueing with these people on a forum just gives them more coverage.So if we can just state facts to correct them and not sink to their low.
We can just let them do as they have for close to a year and make themselves look foolish.

 We will see new names on the forum and new members some will be here just to try to discredit us some will just talk BS but they are allready comeing so like the old saying goes.

(Its's better to say nothing and be thought a fool. Than to speek and remove all doubt.)

[GhostShip]

your analysis of the situation mirrors my own Chuck.

[wonderer]

two simple replies
there are some tools you can use to have certain repeating keystrokes recorded and executed over and over again, like pressing the update button in peerguardian every 5 minutes, no need to wait for the 24 hours peer guardian has built in.

Why run two programs? because you need to, the dll might be effective in blocking flooder, but what about all other p2p sniffers, traffic intercepting companies that are just interested in the in and outgoing data, or do you beleave they dont have the tools we have and maybe even better to follow exactly what files you are up and downloading, searching for, sharing and what more.
And beleave it or not, that is the traffic you allow bij not using any means to block that traffic.

If you know how P2P works it even has not to be you who is down or uploading, just being a link in the peer makes that data pass through your computer if you don't block it. Of course you don't want to block other users, but by blocking the known IP from, let us call it sniffing companies, you prevent the data to reach them, they will be linked out, be no more part of the peer.

preventing to connect can only be done by firewall as far as I know, but in that I might be wrong.

[chuck]

You do kinow that if your going to do  all that you can just add the ip's to your firewall and there is no need for another program.

You still have to update the block list on your own but why run another program?

[Me Here]

Since the WinMXGroup Patch 2.x series there has been no reason to specifically run PG2 or any other program for blocking the RIAA from WinMX on any operating system and for XP/2K users since 1.9.  We have told thousands of folks since then they didnt need PG2 or such installed while running our patches..

So my question is this.. why did you pick now to suddenly be up in arms about this?
Now that they have our Caches blocked on a default list and we are warning folks that are using our caches to remove it are you having such fits?
Why does a message to ONLY our patch users only get your attention Ome.. I cant help but wonder why you even care or why you didnt choose the dates of the patch release to get your panties in a wad over it???

Could it be you have run out of other things that actually pertain to hosts file users to complain about, cant think of any other scare tactics at the pie camps these days... 

[SamSeeSam]

Why run two programs? because you need to, the dll might be effective in blocking flooder, but what about all other p2p sniffers, traffic intercepting companies that are just interested in the in and outgoing data, or do you beleave they dont have the tools we have and maybe even better to follow exactly what files you are up and downloading, searching for, sharing and what more.
And beleave it or not, that is the traffic you allow bij not using any means to block that traffic.

I believe that till today, there is no tool or mechanism by which you can tell for sure what files were downloaded from where and by whom. The RIAA generally has no proof who has downloaded. Hence many of their lawsuits are dropped up by them...

Never mind, if you want PG, then you can use it as much as you want. But the rest of us who feel it is useless, i guess, are excused from using it......
Also since the fakes are the major concern of most users, the 3.0 patch takes care of that, and that is enough... for us and them...

preventing to connect can only be done by firewall as far as I know, but in that I might be wrong.

The blocklist is living proof that your statement is wrong

Cheers

[wonderer]

Also since the fakes are the major concern of most users, the 3.0 patch takes care of that, and that is enough... for us and them...

And that is just what worries me, there is more on the peer than just "fake" files.

@ Me Here
Regretable you only think the dll users to be a part of the winmxpeer.

Just do a little test, run peer guardian with no blocklist, log the allowed connections. dll active of course, see what you allow. Then decide what you need.

[SamSeeSam]

Also since the fakes are the major concern of most users, the 3.0 patch takes care of that, and that is enough... for us and them...

And that is just what worries me, there is more on the peer than just "fake" files.

And what else?
I have tested it and all it does it block some opennap servers... Good ones, not ones that dos you out... Or filled with RIAA.

Cheers

[GhostShip]

Ome we are once again seeing you try to prove PG is helpful to mx users , while its blocking peer caches it is not and I believe that your purely sabotaging users from connecting by your constant asking folks to use it when you are aware its blocking the caches, please stop and think before asking folks to break their working mx sytem by installing PG.

I notice neither you or any of the pie team are asking blutak to unblock the caches, this shows a lack of support for winmx in my book.

[KM]

ome: are you trying to claim that people who are unable to detect systems that are hammering p2p networks constantly can somehow detect passive monitoring systems and block them?

peer guardian does not block such monitoring systems, and anyone trying to claim it does clearly needs to have their agenda investigated to figure out why they are trying to get users to decrease their download performance for absolutely no gain

[wonderer]

Last try then, aside from the reason why the caches are on the blacklists or blocklists, peer guardian is perfectly able to handle an allow list.
About the reason why the caches are still on the list, you can read all on the forum.

And about the passive monitoring, they don't even have to connect to the peer to monitor traffic.

Peerguardian cannot do a thing about it, neirher can your dll.
Since they are passive, they will have no effect on the performance of the network.

Btw, THE block_list has not been updated in 25 hours.