[McAfee]

OK, about:
* Hitting the jackpot
* Unrespected filters
* "Visual Indicators"

It's been a while since both my practices and my settings have triggered bad search results. So I decided to just go for it and Hit the jackpot.

Archives have it the worst, any search term that is not very popular (and thus cause emule to keep fetching results, will eventually yield respones in the form of:
Learn Everything about "what you search for".zip
Download "what you search for" fast with blablabla.zip
etc.

I searched for "libreoffice", with type set to Archive, and file size to min: 100mb, max: 1000mb (using global: servers)

Here's where I go about unrespected filters, I'm not saying all of the filters have the problem, but definitely some of the filters do. And for this particular test we can see that the file size constraints didn't work:
The responses contain small zip files of less than 20mb, which I didn't search for

Finally someone said something about visual indicators, they do look different, but where are these visual indicators documented? I still think if the entry doesn't fit what was searched for, it should simply be excluded from the results.

FOLLOW UP;
In addition to the search terms set above.

Setting extension to RAR. Still shows the ZIP files on the results. What is the purpose of the extension filter?

EDIT2:

Added Image:
http://imageshack.us...337/emuleh.png/

This post has been edited by McAfee: 01 April 2012 - 01:44 PM

[coluche]

Some Support, on 01 April 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

If it [filetype<->extension] doesn't match, a warning sign will apear in the download list.

Does it ?
For quick testing, mis-renaming my downloads myself* : no warning in transfers tab main view, not over here - the only warning I get is in the download details window : general tab and content trab.
So to a casual glance at eMule transfer tab, this mismatch is hidden.

* sometimes actually happened for real (very long filenames -> no or crippled extension.)

xilolee, on 31 March 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Because 99% are fakes....

I think there are way more legit .wmv files.

When I do not expect too many results for a search for video, I do not want them wmv-files filtered from the start, sometimes .wmv is all that there is.
If it turns out there are better files in the search result, I can always type -wmv in that "post-search" filter box.
Typed only once, then applies to all searches until deleted.

Quote

I always use something like (for example for songs):

@bit>127 @bit<321 @siz>2 @siz<15 @len>2m @len<15m @ext=!wma,!wmv -@cod=wmaudio2 -@cod=wmv3

That it is not exactly user friendly

and in many or even most cases unnecessary. I rely 99% on Kad searches, and have no problem finding legit files, if there are any at all.
btw. You forgot flv, 3gb, mov, etc. - so it could even become unfeasible to apply all them filters (max length).

If a user can't have a little common sense - want a 2hour video ? do not download a 3-MB file! etc. - then they probably can't be helped.
I have met people like that in real life.
Three "internet-security" suites installed, cause more helps more. 3 malware popups per minute are seen as proof that their "security" stuff works fine.

But they will download any shit, and if a d/l asks to go to this website and bla, or "needs bla codec installed" they will! invariably do that and install everything.
And if asked if they would not want to have a little closer look to what they download and install, the answer usually went along "can't be arsed to" ...

I do not think that eMule should hinder all users / offer crippled search results just because of some people who will **** up their PC anyway.

This post has been edited by coluche: 01 April 2012 - 01:42 PM

[xilolee]

Nobody can run, when just born

McAfee, on 01 April 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Archives have it the worst, any search term that is not very popular (and thus cause emule to keep fetching results, will eventually yield respones in the form of:
Learn Everything about "what you search for".zip
Download "what you search for" fast with blablabla.zip
etc.

I searched for "libreoffice", with type set to Archive, and file size to min: 100mb, max: 1000mb (using global: servers)

That behaviour is caused by fake servers in your list (and i'm sure that i've already reported it)

This post has been edited by xilolee: 01 April 2012 - 02:23 PM

[McAfee]

xilolee, on 01 April 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Nobody can run, when just born

McAfee, on 01 April 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Archives have it the worst, any search term that is not very popular (and thus cause emule to keep fetching results, will eventually yield respones in the form of:
Learn Everything about "what you search for".zip
Download "what you search for" fast with blablabla.zip
etc.

I searched for "libreoffice", with type set to Archive, and file size to min: 100mb, max: 1000mb (using global: servers)

That behaviour is caused by fake servers in your list (and i'm sure that i've already reported it)

Are you even reading?
How is your reply helpful?
You think I don't know that already?

EDIT:

The search results should contain what was searched for, no more, no less. There may be many different ed2k clients/servers and other applications. One program should not be easily compromised by the faulty behavior (intended or not) of another piece of software. That's why software should do sanity checks.

If tomorrow, someone invents a client capable of making eMule crash by sending it bad information, I guess you will just tell me: "Oh that's because your eMule connected to fake client". Then maybe I should contact the programmers of the other software to stop making my eMule behave not as intended.

This post has been edited by McAfee: 01 April 2012 - 04:37 PM

[hooligan3000]

use websites to search trusted ed2k links
or use brain.exe

http://www.emule-sec...org/serverlist/

This post has been edited by hooligan3000: 01 April 2012 - 04:35 PM

[xilolee]

McAfee, on 01 April 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Are you even reading?
How is your reply helpful?
You think I don't know that already?

If you wanted to report this situation with fake servers, you should know that it has been already reported since YEARS

This post has been edited by xilolee: 01 April 2012 - 04:43 PM

[McAfee]

xilolee, on 01 April 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

If you wanted to report this situation with fake servers, you should know that it has been already reported since YEARS

Some acknowledge there is a problem with the search results, and some don't, but then list workarounds.

Why should eMule users do workarounds, are you guys implying something is wrong with the built-in search?

But what seems to be common is that nobody here cares about a fix...

This post has been edited by McAfee: 01 April 2012 - 05:00 PM

[Stulle]

I think you are not reading. There is nothing wrong with the search per say. The search is working just as expected. The problem is that you allow bad servers to manipulate your search results. It is not a workaround to suggest to be more careful and not trust any server. You need to understand that information received is processed as is because there is no way to verify or falsify the provided information without any doubt. Hence there could be some more graphical warning but that's it. Some user might just be too stupid to name his files properly and there you go again with "wrong" search results which are actually quite right.

[fox88]

McAfee, on 01 April 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

Why should eMule users do workarounds, are you guys implying something is wrong with the built-in search?

What you suggest is a workaround, but built-in into eMule.

[McAfee]

Stulle, on 01 April 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

I think you are not reading. There is nothing wrong with the search per say. The search is working just as expected. The problem is that you allow bad servers to manipulate your search results. It is not a workaround to suggest to be more careful and not trust any server. You need to understand that information received is processed as is because there is no way to verify or falsify the provided information without any doubt. Hence there could be some more graphical warning but that's it. Some user might just be too stupid to name his files properly and there you go again with "wrong" search results which are actually quite right.

I posted the example of file size and the extension filters.

As to "verify and falsify". The search boils down to providing an ed2k link. And an ed2k link, by it's nature has enough information to "verify" those filters. File size is part of the ed2k link itself, and so is the filename.

The user specified a file size range he wanted his results to be, the links can be verified to be within that range.

Extension, can be extracted from the filename portion and can be verified as well. An extension by it's design is just an extension, it suggests what the contents of the file is, but of course the contents itself may be wrong. But the filter is to search by extension, not contents, and that's what it should do. No more, no less.

emule-project.net does not write ALL ed2k software out there. Anyone is free to write their own software and they may adhere or not to the protocol, whether on purpose or by accident. For that reason alone data exchanged between applications should be sanitized. You can't secure anything to 100% but you still secure up to where is feasible. And I know sanitizing the results a bit more is not rocket science.

This forum various input fields sanitize the input, because the forum software can't expect 3rd parties to fill in the fields as intended. 3rd parties may supply wrong data either accidental or intentional. Of course things may still creep in, but you add a little bit of protection as you go. Evolving with the times.

I don't know what other filters may or may not be affected.

This post has been edited by McAfee: 01 April 2012 - 05:59 PM

[fox88]

McAfee, on 01 April 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

I posted the example of file size and the extension filters.

You do not see what kind of example it was.
Plese go to peerates site, compare how many users connect to good servers and how many files they share to your ridiculous 7.3M users and 970M files.

McAfee, on 01 April 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

And I know sanitizing the results a bit more is not rocket science.

Sanitizing the sources of information is even less of a rocket science, is it not?

[McAfee]

fox88, on 01 April 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

McAfee, on 01 April 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

I posted the example of file size and the extension filters.

You do not see what kind of example it was.
Plese go to peerates site, compare how many users connect to good servers and how many files they share to your ridiculous 7.3M users and 970M files.

McAfee, on 01 April 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

And I know sanitizing the results a bit more is not rocket science.

Sanitizing the sources of information is even less of a rocket science, is it not?

> your ridiculous 7.3M users and 970M files

What are you talking about? When have I claimed anything about user counts or file counts?

> Sanitizing the sources of information is even less of a rocket science, is it not?

I hereby post my official petition to ask those programmers that coded the fake servers, to please fix their buggy software. And to please not try to write any new software that might make eMule act Not as intended. Oh wait, they did it on purpose...

This post has been edited by McAfee: 01 April 2012 - 07:59 PM

[fox88]

McAfee, on 01 April 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

What are you talking about? When have I claimed anything about user counts or file counts?

I'm talking about the image you posted in the message #161
Sorry if you do not understand that you managed to collect most, if not all the garbage servers in the world.

McAfee, on 01 April 2012 - 10:57 PM, said:

I hereby post my official petition to ask those programmers that coded the fake servers, to please fix their buggy software. And to please not try to write any new software that might make eMule act Not as intended. Oh wait, they did it on purpose...

Big news: this is eMule's forum, not ed2k servers forum. And definitely not the place where you can meet people who run fake servers.

This post has been edited by fox88: 02 April 2012 - 06:45 AM

[loverboy]

loverboy, on 15 April 2011 - 08:41 PM, said:

Is eMule development going on?
Should we expect a new version in the next few months?

Since practically one year has passed from my original post, I would like to interrupt just for a moment this interesting discussion and have an update: Should we expect a new version in the next few months?

Thanks in advance

[Stulle]

Define "few".

[loverboy]

Stulle, on 02 April 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

Define "few".

Before Christmas

[Eulero]

Christmas of what year?


Don't forget Autoupdate, i'd like to see in the next version, finally.

[coluche]

Some Support, on 09 February 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

...
What should be in the next version is however a fix for faster uploading together with asynchron / threaded reading of partfiles. This is on CVS already for quite a while, waiting to be tested in a beta. But still I cant say when the next version will be released. Pretty sure within this year, maybe before eMule's anniversary.

not sure about eMule's birthday - May ?

This post has been edited by coluche: 03 April 2012 - 09:32 AM

[Some Support]

Better go with the "within this year" part - thats safer Birthday can be found on the front page

[uralhan]

coluche, on 03 April 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

Some Support, on 09 February 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

...
What should be in the next version is however a fix for faster uploading together with asynchron / threaded reading of partfiles. This is on CVS already for quite a while, waiting to be tested in a beta. But still I cant say when the next version will be released. Pretty sure within this year, maybe before eMule's anniversary.

not sure about eMule's birthday - May ?

The mule's 10th anniversary - May 13th 2012.

Some Support, on 03 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

Better go with the "within this year" part - thats safer Birthday can be found on the front page

What about making an official page for the celebration of emule's 10th birthday?

This post has been edited by uralhan: 02 May 2012 - 06:40 AM