[ElChele]

Peerates said:

why the 66.90.73.253 server is in the file ?
it's not a faked or bad server ...
this server is 100% okay for a dl or a search, and don't provide false 'spammed' udp results.
and server admin / owner want to be removed of ipfilter ...

I can`t tell you nothing about, cuz I delete (temporarily) 66.90.73.253 from my IPFilter, in order to test it Again, But I can't do it, an error message appear:
03/11/2007 20:00:13: 66.90.73.253 (66.90.73.253:6543) appears to be dead.
I be able to connect with High ID, and quicky, to any other server present in my list.

Peerates said:

another example of ipfilter potential problem, these 2 servers ip 212.179.18.132/142 tcp4232 are not include in the last ipfilter.dat

I disagree, because I've this line:
212.179.18.129 - 212.179.18.144 , 90 , [L1]fake emule servers,[FK]4232-BezeqInterna,[FK]IL-BEZEQ-INTERNATION,
in my IPFilter.dat.

Edit:Grammar.
bye

This post has been edited by ElChele: 03 November 2007 - 07:43 PM

[Peerates]

hello sharers ...

ElChele, on Nov 3 2007, 08:38 PM, said:

03/11/2007 20:00:13: 66.90.73.253 (66.90.73.253:6543) appears to be dead.

TCP port# is not 6543, but 8899.
host is online and seems to work fine.

Quote

I disagree, because I've this line:
212.179.18.129 - 212.179.18.144 , 90 , [L1]fake emule servers,[FK]4232-BezeqInterna,[FK]IL-BEZEQ-INTERNATION,
in my IPFilter.dat.

i disagree me too.
perhaps my ipfilter.dat is not up to date ( ) or it's not the bluetack version.

I'll check that ...

but, if bluetack include a full ip range in the ipfilter.dat, because of some bad server(s) found onto, then, others servers online on same ip range will be unavailable for the ipfilter.dat users. it's already the case for some of 'good' US hosted servers.

If, for the example, MD publish some faked/spy servers in the same ip range of each 'good' servers, then, all eDonkey servers will be unavailable for the ipfilter.dat users ... So why bluetack (or other ipfilter producers) put an entire ip range and not only the specific IP of one bad server ? what is the 'server tests protocole' to classify a server as bad, or good .. ?

ipfilter users seems very paranoid, but not really protected.
the danger don't coming with servers, but with other bad spyer clients ...

i don't think the digital cops use servers to trap the users, but they find them with a modified client (thank to open source concept ...), by using a 'good' servers list, as gruk or peerates lists, and from a standard ISP dynamic IP address.
and its maintenance is not very easy, but heavy because the contents is very big and very hard to control.

i think perhaps more of 50% of ipfilter.dat content is unuseful...
At the end, ipfilter seems given a very low level of protection, but set an big black hole in the net map viewed by the client.

bye.

[niclights]

Amen brother! Couldn't agree more. A fake server would give false or no search results and/or sources, otherwise I very much doubt there is anything to worry about. Filters might help to avoid 'spammer' clients, as you said previously, but otherwise it is just an exercise in paranoia (and an easy way to lose useful servers/sources). Policing is surely done by client because it is the only way to obtain useful evidence, unlike servers.

It is also amusing that users place blind faith in the filters but decide to question your list/methods. I'm certain that Bluetack admin would be happy to admit they are not infallible. I believe they occasionally post here. Perhaps they can share info on their criteria for inclusion too?

[ElChele]

Peerates said:

TCP port# is not 6543, but 8899.
host is online and seems to work fine.

Thank for the tip, I'm testing it.
BTW, a Lug words came to my mind: they're perfectly functional servers, but some of them are politically incorrect in their behavior.
I wonder if this is not the case.

Peerates said:

i disagree me too.
perhaps my ipfilter.dat is not up to date

Source IPFilter

Peerates said:

put an entire ip range and not only the specific IP of one bad server ? what is the 'server tests protocole' to classify a server as bad, or good ..

I agree, in fact, this behavior would change in next updste, at least in IPFilter linked above.
Related post

Peerates said:

ipfilter users seems very paranoid, but not really protected.
the danger don't coming with servers, but with other bad spyer clients

In that point, I prefer to difference something:
If you use the IPFilter and Fake Servers list info., in order to avoid bad servers, bad sources, fake files, etc..
For me it's a correct behavior.
But, if you are looking for anonymous, security, an bunker for download copyrighted files, without danger, you are wrong.
Same than the best contraceptive, is to say, NO.
The best security is not download ilegal stuff.
the opposite can be more attractive but also dangerous, it is your election.

Peerates said:

i think perhaps more of 50% of ipfilter.dat content is unuseful...
At the end, ipfilter seems given a very low level of protection, but set an big black hole in the net map viewed by the client.

I think the really useless IPFilter, it's the paranoia bluetack ipfilter, at least for the low/medium level user.

bye

[Peerates]

niclights, on Nov 4 2007, 05:23 PM, said:

Perhaps they can share info on their criteria for inclusion too?

it will be a real good thing to share informations about that betwen us.
sharing is good for the health :-)

ElChele, on Nov 4 2007, 06:39 PM, said:

If you use the IPFilter and Fake Servers list info., in order to avoid bad servers, bad sources, fake files, etc..
For me it's a correct behavior.

it seems to me there is a lot of users who don't think really protect them again the pollution or the spammers, with ipfilter.dat, but think protect them from the major's spyers ... we are okay to say it's totaly unuseful to do that.


at last, i want to ask if anybody got info on this (faked) swiss server ?

82.130.102.218:4242
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
Zurich, Switzerland - (ethz.ch)

i am very curious of the goal of that server ...
wich doesn't work and faking its users/files count numbers, and totally unable to connect.

have a nice day.

[ElChele]

82.130.102.218:4242, known as Ultra mule, I've that server listed and filtered.
bye