For users of old hosts file patches.

[GnarlySnarly]

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.

Yes, the concept of a custom combined or composite host list works well for those connecting as secondary clients.  It provides the most reliable connectivity IF kept up to date.  But if the Peer cache servers (PCS) frequently change IPs, then keeping the hosts list current can be a chore, though with multiple PCS using static IPs, connectivity is still good regardless.  As I posted nearly 2 years ago, when the DLL was first created, I think the DLL idea has the most potential for the common users, since many of the issues of keeping the PCS list current can be automated and rendered a background process.  But there are some issues of concern, including transparency and dispersion of control over the PCS and related hostnames coded into the DLL, forced autoupdating to a flawed or hacked version, etc..

In the beginning of the indy winMX net, there were two hosts lists, each with 1 IP.  Soon a mixed-host list was released that used both then available IPs, and the idea of a composite host list was born.  I've built on that ever since, especially after KM decided not to code any  non-KM controlled PCS IPs into his DLL.  I merely re-combined all PCS IPs I knew of into my hosts list.

Contrary to vociferous claims otherwise, secondary users do no harm to WPN by not using the DLL with blocking since the fake chaff-file flooders can't connect to them anyway.  IOW, they effectively have more strict blocking built in - NO other users including the flooders can connect to WPN through those operating as secondaries.

But only those running as primaries can act as a bridge between different user pools that might otherwise tend to form from the 2 exclusive PCS userbases.

The debates over the effectiveness of blocking the fake-file flooders, and whether or not the DLL blocks the flooders any better than PG[lite] with the same blocklist, only concerns those choosing to run their winmx in primary hub mode, not as secondary connections.

I connect as a secondary most of the time, trying to save my bandwidth for uploading files.  And also because my most stable computer atm doesn't have the CPU power to run as a primary hub.

I write my own hosts file and use 10 of the currently available 11 peer cache server IPs.  It appears the 'mxpie' is splintered into different, estranged camps, with mxpie.com offering one solution and mxpie.info another.


Mxpie.com is pushing their new 'PieAutoUpdater.exe', which is claimed to auto-update both the hosts list and a flooder blocklist for PGlite.
What they don't broadcast is that this works only on the newer windows OS.  It doesn't work on win98 which is what I use on 2 of my winmx file-servs. - They no longer have a link to a current host list for DIY manual installs.  when pressed on this, they directed me to a link for host list v3.2, which uses these 3 PCS IPs  for winmx connectivity:

[edit] Quantity Of IP,s removed by GhostShip for breaching site policy.

Their PieAutoUpdater MAY utilize more IPs in the hosts list, but I can't test that on my win98 boxes :p  It may use all 10 or 11 IPs like I do.

mxpie.info is pushing their v3.5 which adds 1 more IP to the above 3 IPs:

[edit] Single IP removed by GhostShip for breaching site policy.

This recent version also added some *.winmxgroup.com redirects to provide connectivity for WCS v1.74 chat room servers and also non-updated DLL users.  They do make the simple hosts list available for manual install as well as offering an automated installer for it.


AFAIK, hostnames coded into the current x-KM/WmW DLL resolve to these 7 PCS IPs:

[edit] Quantity Of IP,s removed by GhostShip for breaching site policy.

These IPs were prone to frequent changes under KM's control, a detriment to host file users.  Only time will tell whether or not the current management will try to keep them more static, though my information is that they would prefer to do so.

[Bearded Blunder]

there's damn all anyone can do to keep that bottom list static.. & it has nothing to do with KM's control.. those caches are on DYNAMIC IP ADDRESSES perhaps you'd like to pay for their owners to get static ips instead?

the whole point being that addressing these via a static text list (hosts file) is rather silly...

a point which has been made repeatedly to you but you seem to dense to understand

[GhostShip]

I am more than suprised you have posted IP,s of what are ostensibly flexible connection addresses, it seems as Merlin makes plain your either unable or unwilling to take on board the important reasons why having static/fixed IP,s is a major step into luddite land, now I personally dont get the impression your an idiot so this then is a malicous action on your part and as such take this as a final warning, post IP addresses on this site again without permission and you will find your membership revoked and access blocked.

For those who may not understand why Gnarly is incurring my wrath on this matter its purely because we understand that sometimes the caches need to change IP,s and having the old IP,s being bombarded by winmx users trying to connect is both stupid and irresponsible, I,m sure Gnarly knows this more that anyone.

[Gnarlyhelp]

Mxpie.com is pushing their new 'PieAutoUpdater.exe', which is claimed to auto-update both the hosts list and a flooder blocklist for PGlite.
What they don't broadcast is that this works only on the newer windows OS.  It doesn't work on win98 which is what I use on 2 of my winmx file-servs.

Quote from the mxpie.com site - instructions for Mxpie auto patch (Text is mirrored on other support sites too):

The "Pie Auto Updater" is intended to be an all inclusive solution for 2000/2003/XP users who wish to resolve connectivity and never need to download additional updates again.

Its all there, black and white, whilst i had wished to include the solution from 98 users, alas the blocking tool used (pglyte) is not compatable. Perhaps some 9 years on its time to consider an upgrade?

[Bearded Blunder]

* Bearded Blunder notes Vista is also missing from that OS list......

perhaps a solution that works on all os versions winmx itself can be run on instead?? oh i forgot.. we already offer one.. that doesn't potentially hijack your entire internet connection at the whim of those running it....

so why encourage people to DOWNGRADE to a "solution" with limited compatibility slower blocking update times.. greater resource usage (even pglite uses more cpu than the dll) offers no filtering.. & won't even run on NEW systems without an OS DOWNGRADE...

Please quit wasting everyone's time

[backoffbearded]

perhaps a solution that works on all os versions winmx itself can be run on instead?? oh i forgot.. we already offer one.. that doesn't potentially hijack your entire internet connection at the whim of those running it....

so why encourage people to DOWNGRADE to a "solution" with limited compatibility slower blocking update times.. greater resource usage (even pglite uses more cpu than the dll) offers no filtering.. & won't even run on NEW systems without an OS DOWNGRADE...

Well now, isnt that a matter of opinion, whilst you say "we" offer a patch what you mean is you offer a re-hashed version of KM's closed source patch with his hidden extras still inside.  I see bearded your still intent on clinging to the past, hasnt recent events taught you anything? Whilst your associates realised the mistakes of the past and strive forward to new cross community patch, will you be clinging to your closed source .dll with your "I love KM" tshirt on? Shame on you, when the community needs a new and forward looking postute, you lurch around like an old dinosaur......

And to take you up more specifically on one of your points: "so why encourage people to DOWNGRADE"  -  My sole aim at this time is to ensure mxpie.info users are getting a blocking patch, not left with a hosts only flooding solution, this will ensure the network is kept tidy and non blocking solutions dont get too much of a foothold.  Do you consider moving from a non-blocking patch to a blocking patch a Downgrade? When will you accept there are people out there that dont want KMs patch, and with good reason. These same people were not just recently dropped in the sh*t, and when i and others coulda gone on a gloat fest, did i? No, i contacted ghost offered support for the recovery, perhaps you should take a leaf out the book and instead of attack attack attack, you might switch to a more positive stance.

Whilst this is going on a  new community OS patch is getting closer to completion, shame on you for being so backward, when the community needs a little positivity. Gnarly is known for making large statements based on in correct facts, i like others simply corrected his "facts".

As for the short fallings of the Mxpie auto updater, i am very well aware of them, and have never claimed the patch to be perfect. But along with the WmW blocklist, it does connect users, it does block flooders and right now, those are the most important factors.

[Ex-Pie]

with his hidden extras still inside.

In the interests of security, could you please tell us what these "hidden extras" are? I for one would like to know if there is anything I should be concerned about running on my system, so could you please tell me what they are and how to find them, so I can look in to removing them

I see bearded your still intent on clinging to the past, hasnt recent events taught you anything?

It was events just like those recently that caused me to switch to the winmxgroup (and now winmxworld) patch

I used to be a pie user but on the third time that my winmx was left completely unable to connect with no help at all from pie, on each occasion it took days to even get someone from pie to admit there was even a problem (they just kept telling me "reinstall everything" repeatedly and "you must be an idiot doing something wrong, do it again"), then when they did finally admit it was their problem I was still left unable to connect for a few more days while they came up with a fix (I think they blamed KM every single time - which makes me wonder if they were really as dependent on KM as they claimed, or if in fact they lied about it?)

The single time my winmx stopped working since I switched when winmxgroup closed I did at least get a message in my update bar telling me straight away where to get a fix - I can only hope that if anything happens with winxworld they will copy the winmxgroup way of dealing with it and inform the users (from what I have seen so far they seem like they would)

And to take you up more specifically on one of your points: "so why encourage people to DOWNGRADE"  -  My sole aim at this time is to ensure mxpie.info users are getting a blocking patch, not left with a hosts only flooding solution, this will ensure the network is kept tidy and non blocking solutions dont get too much of a foothold.

From personal experience I have to say that when I was using pie I thought winmx was just OKish, but the fakes were a huge annoyance and made it useless for any popular files, are you saying you now got rid of them since I last had them? because I personally would consider it a huge downgrade to go back to how it used to be with thousands of fake search results.

[inshort]

Expie - based on various information, conversations, history and the profile of the user, i deem KMs patch at very least a security concern, as do un-surprisingly many many others.  Fake files are an issue for many, and i look forward to the fast approaching day when an open source community patch will be available for blocking and filtering, a patch that does not have question marks over its source or indeed its additional "features" and uses.

The fakes are only there because some users are using hosts only without any blocking, at this time, WE should all be encouraging users to use a blocking patch, keeping the network as fake free as possible whilst those with the skills work on completing the OS patch.

Im glad you have found your winmx experience to have improved, now lets hope the new patch and cache set up, improves users, and network security and longevity further for all, and promotes a tranparant and more united Winmx community.

[Bearded Blunder]

hmm.. "a security concern" i venture to suggest that dll is the most SCRUTINISED bit of coding that has ever been associated with winmx... & to date nobody has found ANYTHING of concern, else you could rest assured pie would be shouting it from the rooftops....

The auto-updater on the other hand could easily be used to hijack ANY website.. your online banking.. your email.. your you-name-it..

& you give me "security concern" about a dll file which can ONLY affect the program which loads it (winmx)..

i suggest you go away & consult someone who has the FIRST BEGGINING OF AN IDEA about "security" before spouting such arrant nonsense

[seriously bearded?]

hmm.. "a security concern" i venture to suggest that dll is the most SCRUTINISED bit of coding that has ever been associated with winmx...

So you or others you know have scrutinised the source code? Its been fully scrutinised for all possible malware, backdoors and otherwise? Its been checked from top to bottom for encrypted "extras"? The answer is ofc, no it has not. The KM .dll has ofc remained closed source under the banner of "network security" now it seems others can easily manage a blocking and filtering .dll thats OS with no such concerns, some might wonder what KM has in there that he didnt want folks to see, some might also wonder when he "retired" why he didnt just hand over all relevant source code to his collegues,  so his "work" could be continued, i'm sure there are some interesting answers to these matters, i doubt we will ever hear the real deal.

 The security issues with the Pie auto updater are widely known and users with any concerns, can simply switch the hosts update to off, its that simple, on/off, and of course with the hosts and blocklist totally viewable by users at all times, wouldnt take long for it to be picked up and reported should anything of concern be taking place, can .dll users say the same?

As for consulting someone who knows about security, actually i have, and the word that came back suggested there was potential for all sorts of interesting options from DDOS through to insertation of trojans and more, with the right set up ofc, whether the .dll is set up for this? Only KM will ever know, although im sure he will have plenty of folks like yourself who even after his recent un ceremonious "drop u in the shit" action,  will still back him blindly.

Still as i have said, this for me is an old tired arguement, that nobody other than KM can ever know the truth over. Its now time to move on, unite as much of the community as possible, block the scum off the network, and work towards a fool proof and independant system of check sites and caches, with an OS blocking and filtering patch, i suggest bearded, its time you took on a more positive outlook, rather than hugging the past, KMs gone, and his claims the wpn would collapse without him were greatly exagerated, move on Bearded, there is light ahead.

[Bearded Blunder]

You are starting to annoy me gnarly..

Every time things start to settle down & forward progress begins you crawl out from under your rock & start trying to stir dissent.

Please crawl back wherever you hide..

BTW how much are the RIAA paying you to try to keep fights going???

[]-[êll.Ôñ.ËÀR'][']-[.]

give it up gnarly your starting to annoy everyone with your constant bitching & winging about something you so obviously just want to cause trouble over
give us all a break and crawl a lot furthur this time and nestle right up the RIAA's a**

[GnarlySnarly]

***
[edit] Quantity Of IP,s removed by Mizz for breaching site policy.

***
[edit] Quantity Of IP,s removed by Mizz for breaching site policy.
***

What site policy?
Is there one written somewhere?
If one exists, please provide link and specifically how I violated it.

[GnarlySnarly]

I am more than suprised you have posted IP,s of what are ostensibly flexible connection addresses, it seems as Merlin makes plain your either unable or unwilling to take on board the important reasons why having static/fixed IP,s is a major step into luddite land, now I personally dont get the impression your an idiot so this then is a malicous action on your part and as such take this as a final warning, post IP addresses on this site again without permission and you will find your membership revoked and access blocked.

I listed the IPs in direct response to another poster who indicated that more than 4 IPs were added to the hosts list by some patch.  I had stated that I used 4, because that is all that any manually installed mxpie host file uses, and I acknowledged that IF the mxpie.com patch adds more, I wouldn't know since I have only been using winmx on my win98 computers and that particular patch is not compatible.

At least I was willing to provide accurate information to this user's questions.  How in your mind that is translated into 'malicious' i am clueless.

The IPs of peer cache servers are not state secrets.  They are published in all hosts lists and those in the DLL had been publicly advertised on the 'check cache status webpage', until KM closed that 3 weeks ago.  And now, though not on such a status webpage that I am aware of, The IPs in use at any given time can be readily deterrmined by any one by merely doing a DNS look up of the 30 host names coded into the DLL.

The fact that the IPs of the peer cache servers has been published over and over again on this and other forums makes me wonder why only my posts have been edited and only I have been threatened.  Can you point me to a single case where anyone else that has posted an IP of a cache server on this forum has ever been warned about it as being some sort of violation?  Can you point to some specfic written policy that I violated?
 

For those who may not understand why Gnarly is incurring my wrath on this matter its purely because we understand that sometimes the caches need to change IP,s and having the old IP,s being bombarded by winmx users trying to connect is both stupid and irresponsible, I,m sure Gnarly knows this more that anyone.

Your reason sounds disingenuous to me.  Especially since it was YOU that said static IPs were preferred.  Everyone understands that the IPs change from time to time.  If they didn't there would not be so many versions of hosts files published by this and other groups over the last 2 years.  Your OT concerns have some validity, but they are easily addressed by providing accurate and current information the the users.  And if you had bothered to think about what I have posted, you would have seen that I touched on the topic of using dynamic IPs and that since they are so prolific among our user base that a properly coded DLL could utilize these resources better than hosts lists.  I wrote nearly 2 years ago that I thought a properly designed DLL idea held the most promise for the vast majority of winmx users who may be befuddled with tasks any more diffucult that clicking on an .exe installer file.  I still believe that.

[GnarlySnarly]

Mxpie.com is pushing their new 'PieAutoUpdater.exe', which is claimed to auto-update both the hosts list and a flooder blocklist for PGlite.
What they don't broadcast is that this works only on the newer windows OS.  It doesn't work on win98 which is what I use on 2 of my winmx file-servs.

Quote from the mxpie.com site - instructions for Mxpie auto patch (Text is mirrored on other support sites too):

The "Pie Auto Updater" is intended to be an all inclusive solution for 2000/2003/XP users who wish to resolve connectivity and never need to download additional updates again.

Its all there, black and white, whilst i had wished to include the solution from 98 users, alas the blocking tool used (pglyte) is not compatable. Perhaps some 9 years on its time to consider an upgrade?

Please.. I have to believe that millions if not tens of millions of people still use win98.  And I'll be damned if I am going to dump a working computer into the toxic waste disposal just because it is not powerful enough to run M$'s bloated XP!

And what may be 'listed in black and white' somewhere is going ignored on the so-called help channels.  I was rather shocked to listen to the advice being dished out on the vladd help channel.

When someone entered with connectivity problems, I never saw them being asked "Do you connect as a secondary or as  primary hub?  That relates of course to whether or not the user needs to use any blocklist condom.

Further, I never saw them being asked "What OS do you have?  win98?  winME? or win2000, 2003, winXP or Vista."

The user is never asked what version of winmx they are using or prefer, much less explain the differences.

All I saw was a boiler-plate, one-size fits all pseudo-instructions to delete ever copy winmx.exe from their computer, then run the pieautoupdater, then download an older version of winmx and install it.

And if the user was using the latest version, v3.54b4, then all of their settings and share library setup are trashed.  And they call this 'help'.

Worse, running this 'pieautoupdater' changes the hosts list so that it uses only 2 of the known 11 peer cache servers.  And those 2 are on the same c-block, same ISP.  If they go down, so does that user's connectivity.  I prefer access to 10 or 11 peer cache servers rather than just the 7 or 4 or 2 as any of the existing patches provide.  works fine for me for now.  I've never had the connectivity problems so many others are complaining about.

[Mizz]

***
[edit] Quantity Of IP,s removed by Mizz for breaching site policy.

***
[edit] Quantity Of IP,s removed by Mizz for breaching site policy.
***

What site policy?
Is there one written somewhere?
If one exists, please provide link and specifically how I violated it.

Even if the IP's are no state secret in your eyes....and can be viewed by others in use of the DLL....let me say this to you...

Im sure you are listed in the phonebook...for all the world to see...

yet we dont splash that info on site for all to view now do we ?

btw gnarly your rant is getting boring at best....taking up space on forum that could be used posting Intresting things....i am no tech at all....but u are dragging out the convo for no other reason then to see yourself posted on this topic....and apparantly to irritate and annoy others in the progress..

I will leave you with these words......perhaps they are something for you to think about.

When one acts as a child, they should not be suprised when treated accordingly.


Mizz

[OutofdatGnarly]

Please.. I have to believe that millions if not tens of millions of people still use win98.  And I'll be damned if I am going to dump a working computer into the toxic waste disposal just because it is not powerful enough to run M$'s bloated XP!

I merely corrected you and pointed out the OS systems the patch runs on, and stated this information is right there on the website clear as day. If you choose to run an old OS, then you can have no cause to complain when modern software will not run on it. Perhaps the coloured text on the site caught out your green only monitor?

[GnarlySnarly]

Please.. I have to believe that millions if not tens of millions of people still use win98.  And I'll be damned if I am going to dump a working computer into the toxic waste disposal just because it is not powerful enough to run M$'s bloated XP!

I merely corrected you and pointed out the OS systems the patch runs on, and stated this information is right there on the website clear as day. If you choose to run an old OS, then you can have no cause to complain when modern software will not run on it. Perhaps the coloured text on the site caught out your green only monitor?

Where do people go for the patch?  Don't most just click the [downloads] link?

And NOTHING on the downloads page suggests that this patch won't work for win98/ME users, just:

Downloads
*Latest PIE Patch is Pie Auto Updater*

For Immediate help getting connected go to Vladd44 Help Room_***

Some antivirus, firewalls block modification of the hosts file. If there is a problem after you install, reinstall with those items turned off. Don't forget to switch your protection back on after installation, for a step by step guide please visit our instruction page.

[link]Download Pie Auto Updater Installer - The easiest way to get WinMX working again.

Yes, there is a line buried in the lengthy online instructions as you say, but again, no section giving meaningful advice specifically for users on win98 or ME.

worse, is that in the promoted help channel, no one takes to time to ask the simple question, "What operating system are you using?" before giving advice for which that is a significant issue.

It needs to be more than:  "Instructions for WIN98/ME users: upgrade to XP and then install our patch."

and FYI, I have an XP MC 2005 system so I'm not too far out of date, but since I share so many files i need to run winmx on 2 or 3 systems at a time, which requires making use of my trusty old win98 boxes.  They make good fileservers.


I did like this new language on your webpage though:

Primary users should also note, if you are using a patch that does not offer Winmx specific blocking you may well be allowing the RIAA agencies to use YOUR connection to flood the Winmx network,...

It's nice to see users being informed that blocking flooders is an issue that PRIMARY [not secondary] users need to consider and act on.  Glad to see someone is finally making that distinction.

[GnarlySnarly]

Even if the IP's are no state secret in your eyes....and can be viewed by others in use of the DLL....let me say this to you...

Im sure you are listed in the phonebook...for all the world to see...

yet we dont splash that info on site for all to view now do we ?***

No. I'm not listed in the phone book. but that is an irrelevant non sequitur

ALL of the peer cache servers I listed are publicly known or easily learned if not widely publicized, else a simpleton like me wouldn't know the IPs.  Those were already splashed all over the net, in hosts lists to be downloaded from numerous sites, by KM when he was running his cache status page, and from simply resolving hostnames used by the DLL via DNS.

[GhostShip]

For simplicity I shall  post once more here why I dont wish DLL Cache IP addresses to be posted on this site, as of course I have no control over other sites.

Dll cache hosts of which there are now 10 are predominantly user caches, run for the community by commited users, as the majority of winmx users are aware in most cases the IP,s in use are not permanently fixed and are regularly updated by the server team to ensure an efficient connection to the WPN is obtained by dll users.

To claim its helpful to add many dynamic IP,s to a static list that has no such team ensuring its updated is in my opinion reckless and irresponsible, whilst you seem more than happy to add any of these IP,s to your list regardless of whether or not there is a cache at the address as you believe,  I am not and will not encourage anyone else to act in this senseless way.

If you feel you have been singled out Gnarly feel free to provide your own references from this site rather than try to keep wasting the valuable time of those helping,  I personally believe disrupting the community is your primary aim in posting here.