[Rekrul]

For over a week now, I've been trying to download a large video file. I have very little of the file and for the past few days there haven't been any useful sources online. I looked up the file's hash on the ed2k-stats site and it found two complete sources. The only problem is that they're both on sites that are reported to be fake. They are;

93.174.93.215 - Sharing Kingdon 6
61.130.111.15 - no1.eserver.emule.org.cn

I figured I had nothing to lose by trying, so I remporarily removed almost all the files from my shared directory, added the two servers and connected to the first. A few seconds after connecting, a complete source appeared in the transfers window for that file. I then connected to the second server and a second source appeared. Now, I'm on queue with both.

I've also tried doing server searches on both and they don't exhibit any of the normal signs of a fake server. They seem to be indexing the few files I left in the shared directory. Searching for obscure search terms doesn't return any matches at all (fake servers seem to take whatever you search for and send you a ton of fake results). The search results that they do return, look genuine.

I'm wondering how it was determined that these servers were fake. From what I can see, they appear to be fully-functioning servers. The Sharing Kingdom one, lists a limit of 350K users, the same as the other Sharing Kingdom servers, and says it has 5.39M files, The no1.eserver.emule.org.cn lists a limit of 1M users and says it has 11.33M files.

If they are truly "fake" servers, it seems strange to me that they index my files, return seemingly valid search results and connect me to sources. I'm not saying that this makes me trust them, I'm just curious why they don't behave like normal fakes.

[Dick_Manitoba]

You are not alone. About 5 weeks ago, I chucked IP filters, and began manually testing servers myself using useful web services as a guide to servers that are actually providing sources. The exact same scenario yoi described occurred with me. And while I had the same successful experience you did, I can say that some of these servers that seem to work do not always work as well as you think they do.

Even if your mule tells you the files are indexed on the server, you can fire up another mule, or have a friend fire up theirs, clean out their queue, and queue a unique file that only you share. You'll discover some of your files will not be found, even though your mule says the server has indexed them (and there is no server message saying otherwise).

Whatever Peerates does or how it does it, I won't speculate. All I am going to say is, if you know how go off on your own and not surrender your mule to useless servers in the process, do so. And if you do not, well, you can follow patterns others follow.

[fox88]

Servers are like black boxes; we never really know who controls those.
It might index your files one day, and not index the other day.
As far as I get Sharing Kingdom were always thought to be suspicious, but so far I've seen no clear signs of bad activity.

[torpon]

Ip for Sharing Kingdom 1 to 4 are not included in last version of ipfilter, but they star by 89.248.172.

Cheers

[xilolee]

By very few days/weeks ...

Personally i use also other SK and Master S

[Dick_Manitoba]

I believe there is a correlation between a server providing or not providing results, having itself published in more server lists, and then being found in "suspicious/fake" lists a while later, and going back and forth between these states. Very few servers actually prove stable with respect to doing what a server should be doing.

Most of these "suspicious" servers seem to be a case of baiting and catching and eventual disappointing, all seeming to be an effort to undermine servers in general, which they've already done, but far from complete, and in many respects, a failure. All this has done is to bring more attention to this sort of server behaviour, and finds my mule treating them as "occasional resources", serving their purpose while they do play nicely with my mules, and at other times, ignoring them entirely.

Of course, I could be totally wrong. But I doubt I am. I know what organizations and associations are behind these efforts, and I would like to publicly thank them for occasional services rendered, knowing that the tactic of dead-letter-office doesn't serve anyone, and earned them no gains.

This post has been edited by Dick_Manitoba: 18 March 2009 - 07:11 AM

[rinrin]

61.130.111.15 - no1.eserver.emule.org.cn

Are NOT a fake server. I can assure you . And this server have a forum too but of course its in chinese.

add: http://bbs.verycd.com

But if you want land to this server. you must add "[CHN][VeryCD]" tag infront of your username.

[torpon]

Quote

But if you want land to this server. you must add "[CHN][VeryCD]" tag infront of your username.

Enough reason to act as a fake one for most users.

Cheers

[zerobyte]

if you do not want to depend on the filter lists, i still recommend the manual mark-as-spam method 42901"]here.

00h

[torpon]

And how can you avoid fake sources and fake files indexed by those fake servers, if you don't use ipfilter? Spam results is just one of the bad things made by fake servers.

Cheers

[shortypower]

rinrin, on Mar 27 2009, 06:51 AM, said:

61.130.111.15 - no1.eserver.emule.org.cn

Are NOT a fake server. I can assure you . And this server have a forum too but of course its in chinese.

add: http://bbs.verycd.com

But if you want land to this server. you must add "[CHN][VeryCD]" tag infront of your username.

This is not necessary and required you can login without this tag's.