Razorback Servers Seized By Belgian Police
#337
Posted 03 August 2006 - 12:32 AM
you don't think that's fair ??
The extreme limit of wisdom, that is what the public calls madness.
#339
Posted 06 August 2006 - 04:00 PM
zankyw, on Aug 2 2006, 11:31 PM, said:
Let us see what else will be restricted. Those above are the mainstream arguments for implementing filtering mechanism.
This post has been edited by cyhyryiys: 06 August 2006 - 04:01 PM
#340
Posted 07 August 2006 - 12:22 AM
#341
Posted 07 August 2006 - 03:34 AM
Math is delicious!
MmMm! Mauna Loa Milk Chocolate Toffee Macadamias are little drops of Heaven ^_^
Si vis pacem, para bellum DIE SPAMMERS DIE!
#342
Posted 07 August 2006 - 07:04 AM
If you were a server owner, you certainly noticed that eserver have plenty ways to filter files, since the very begining of its life.
If you were a pedophil, you certainly noticed that some servers *always* filtered your stuff. Example : ChezToff (213.186.60.106) : try to search a file with 'pedo' in it filename...
This is as easy as :
filter[0]=(pedo)
(as explained in : original edonkey server doc)
If you were a normal guy, you certainly noticed that *some* pedo stuff is shared and can be found on *some* servers and you would certainly asked yourself : Why servers owners can let this stuff *enter* their server ?
As the eserver author, I have to give tools so that servers owners can still run their server, even if they SHOULD/HAVE/MUST filter some files, that might hurt them.
You can call this 'fake tools' or 'fake servers'. Then I would like you to go to your local police with some pedo files and fill an official complaint that 'some servers' wont let you share your stuff, on the Internet.
Pacobell, you tell us about trusting a server, but it doesnt make any sense. Even a real 'lugdunum' server is only a repository of what other clients publish. Dont trust clients because there are a lot of fake clients spreading fake files. Ho could you trust the servers if their clients are not trustable ?
#343
Posted 07 August 2006 - 09:30 AM
PacoBell, on Aug 7 2006, 05:34 AM, said:
The correct way would be to add something to emule that checks if the server is correcly publishing your files. Trusting the serverowners to publish what they filter is not the correct way. It would add overhead, but it would automatically filter bad servers. (this was discussed long ago in FR, but i never made code that had the quality to be published).
Trouble connecting to a server? Use kad and /or refresh your server list
Strange search results? Check for fake servers! Or download morph, enable obfuscated server required, and far less fake server seen.
Looking for morphXT translators. If you want to translate the morph strings please come here (you only need to be able to write, no coding required. ) Covered now: cn,pt(br),it,es_t,fr.,pl Update needed:de,nl
-Morph FAQ [English wiki]--Het grote emule topic deel 13 [Nederlands]
if you want to send a message i will tell you to open op a topic in the forum. Other forum lurkers might be helped as well.
#344
Posted 07 August 2006 - 05:15 PM
lugdunummaster, on Aug 7 2006, 12:04 AM, said:
Quote
Math is delicious!
MmMm! Mauna Loa Milk Chocolate Toffee Macadamias are little drops of Heaven ^_^
Si vis pacem, para bellum DIE SPAMMERS DIE!
#345
Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:03 PM
PacoBell, on Aug 7 2006, 08:15 PM, said:
I agree with PacoBell.
There is also the fact that not all filenames are in English. There are files on the network from allover the world and I can bet that the server operators and programmers can't even recognize most of them. So when you start filter out words that contain fragments of something that is considered *bad* or might be referring to something copyrighted in English (or in some other major language) then you will also filter out the words that have nothing to do with the meaning that it has in English.
And if you can not get any info whatsoever about the files that are considered bad by the server you are currently connected to, then you can never be sure that your totally legit content can be found via server search.
Considering the fact that filtering is already done on the most popular servers without informing the users about it, it looks like we can not trust any server search anymore.
Donkeyserver search for the word "king" is a good example. Can anyone think of a reason why it's not working? Is it really filtered out?
While "king" means "emperor" in English, it's a "shoe" in my language. Why am I denied searching shoes? Or kings?
This post has been edited by m8h: 08 August 2006 - 01:04 PM
#346
Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:54 PM
Quote
Let me see what could happen. Le me write this here as some of you dont have a clue.
One upon a time, DsNo1 owner received an official letter from MPAA/RIAA, asking him to shutdown its server(s), because MPAA/RIAA could find "king... you know what" on his server.
Instead of closing server, or being sued and charged/fined millions of dollars, I understand DsNo1 owner chose to add a filter, so that RIAA/MPAA could not EVER find a single sample of this film on this server. It seems you still can find a lot of other stuff, so maybe RIAA/MPAA lawers are lazy and not giving a whole list of forbidden words...
As as said, dont trust servers, dont trust clients. Be prepared to the fact that some message you send to the network may be un-answered, or even get wrong results.
Of course you are free to setup your own server. I think Kad itself is meant to carry a client AND a server in a single program.
#347
Posted 08 August 2006 - 01:59 PM
If those files are not shown anymore, this would open up a way to easily make any searches completely unreliable. It would be very easy to get files banned from search results, even if they are ok from a moral and legal point of view.
#348
Posted 08 August 2006 - 02:09 PM
LSX2007, on Aug 8 2006, 02:59 PM, said:
If those files are not shown anymore, this would open up a way to easily make any searches completely unreliable. It would be very easy to get files banned from search results, even if they are ok from a moral and legal point of view.
http://www.edonkey20...ver.html#filter
if i understand correctly filtering is active only when you send you filelist to the server (on connection or on sharedlist change), so if another user send the same file (same md4) but with a different name (this one not censored), the file will still be reachable and the sources can be asked to the server (i don't think hash filtering is possible with edonkey servers... right?)
btw... kad works great... since some days i'm no more connecting to the servers... just to kad... and no problem so far... still a lot of sources (the one that aren't connected to kad arrive via source exchange
This post has been edited by EvolutionCrazy: 08 August 2006 - 02:12 PM
#349
Posted 08 August 2006 - 04:03 PM
lugdunummaster, on Aug 8 2006, 04:54 PM, said:
Instead of closing server, or being sued and charged/fined millions of dollars, I understand DsNo1 owner chose to add a filter, so that RIAA/MPAA could not EVER find a single sample of this film on this server.
Quote
Yeah, well, then they would come with the complete dictionary and all words will be filtered.
Quote
Well, I haven't seen such a statement from a server software developer in this forum before and thought that at least some servers can be trusted (or maybe I missed that statement?). Now it appears that all servers might give you fake results. So thanks for clearing that up.
Quote
Quote
Quote
We are talking about no results given by the servers that are considered reliable.
Quote
I've been using Kad since it was added to the official eMule client. I'm using both search types when I search something and I can't get good results with the first attempt.
I just have not seen it before that some words might be completely ignored by servers. I guess I have not been using ©words
Anyway, thanks for bringing some clarity in the matter.
And thank you for all the work you have done with the server software. Keep up the good work
#350
Posted 08 August 2006 - 04:32 PM
Quote
I dont know... my stats show me that about 20.000 'clients' are connected to DsNo1 (and other servers as well) trying to push viruses/worms/...
Quote
Well.. it took me one month to write first eserver.
Protocol between clients and servers is not crypted/signed/authentified, and this protocol is 'public' (for anyone reading emule sources). So I suspect it would be quite easy for a programmer to write a 'clone' and let it do strange things.
Even if no programmer was able to reproduce my work (very unlikely), I suspect a secret agent could just copy my sources (I am not living in a bunker)
So it is very likely some fake servers can give you fake results, or record your requests and send/sell them to your friend/enemy
Again, dont trust servers or clients. Dont trust me neither
#351
Posted 08 August 2006 - 05:03 PM
lugdunummaster, on Aug 8 2006, 07:32 PM, said:
That only means that you really can trust those clients - they really are distributing everything in the shared folders. They are not filtering anything. The fact that their users are stupid does not make the clients unreliable.
The only filtering should be done by the filter between the monitor and the seat on the download side.
Quote
Yeah. I won't!
Trust no one!
©Fox Entertainment Group Inc.
#352
Posted 08 August 2006 - 05:28 PM
The extreme limit of wisdom, that is what the public calls madness.
#353
Posted 08 August 2006 - 05:48 PM
MadlyMad, on Aug 8 2006, 07:28 PM, said:
Well, dunno about you, but in DSn1 I can search for "sex" but not for "porn".
Minister of Strange Operative Systems and Sarcasm (S.O.S & S) in President Birk's New World Order
#354
Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:08 PM
Kry, on Aug 8 2006, 10:48 AM, said:
Ugh. That's so backwards, I don't have words to describe it. Stuff like this makes me physically ill.P.S. Read QC much?
Math is delicious!
MmMm! Mauna Loa Milk Chocolate Toffee Macadamias are little drops of Heaven ^_^
Si vis pacem, para bellum DIE SPAMMERS DIE!
#355
Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:13 PM
Quote
I found plenty results. Must be something wrong on your side.