There used to be one in the eMule beginner's guide, but the link has been removed...

http://www.gruk.org/list.php

and/or

http://www.peerates.net/peerates/index.html

I'm using http://peerates.net/peerates/certifiedservers.met and http://peerates.net/peerates/trueservers.met when i think my serverlist looks a bit thin (I don't have any update options ticked)
Also, gruk is still being recommended by some.

see trebla's guide for more url's (and serverlist maintenance)

Alright, thanks a lot guys.

Actually there still is a link in the beginenrs guide which links to the "addresses to udpate your server.met" page which was updated just yesterday.

Hi everyone
Server List for eDonkey2000, it's full of fake servers.
TheDonkeyNetwork don't work, at least for me and tonight.
bye

you should try http://list.edonkey.to

It's a Server lists enough clean, few servers, but good ones.
Thanks for the information.
bye

hi,



please,
try to don't use this 2 lists anymore time, because in few days, these won't be updated, then deleted from the website.

for now and later, instead the two old previous metafiles, you can use this adress in your emule configuration :
http://www.peerates.net/servers.php

the 2 old lists are updated now in one only 'good' servers list, named 'peerates servers list', wich include all and only the fully functionnal servers.

New :
You can use now this site : http://edk.peerates.net, with this web interface to make your servers choice dynamically or to get more information about edonkey servers.

keep in mind this site is already a 'beta version'.
have fun.



Jean-roger Peerates.

cheers! my AC_ServerMetURLs.dat is duly updated

Is there a special reason that Server List for eDonkey2000 (=ed2k.has.it) is kept in the official online help pages?
It redirects to http://ed2k.2x4u.de/index.html and if I understand this correctly one ends up with at least 62 servers including all kinds of wmule and alike.
Almost every server topic in this forum advises to avoid that kind of serverlist.

It is present in German / English / French and who knows in what other languages online help.
It is NOT present in spanish online help

If you currently have servers in your list, use IP Filter from http://www.bluetack.co.uk/config/nipfilter.dat.gz and reload every Monday of each week.
If you have no servers in your list, then get one from either of the fine sites remcommended above.

Good news, thank'u Peerates
BTW, I missed an "See the List " option.
bye

That's great! Thanks!

@ Peerates.
BTW.......



They are allready listed here, and IPfiltered.
Please, consider to remove them, from your list.
Thank in advance.
bye

hi,



why ?
If you give me a 'good' reason, i will do that.

These servers provide sources ip and results for a search request.
perhaps you are right, but i need a reason to mark these two servers as bad ...
and i already got mail contact with the x.x.x.253:8899 dserver admin, he seems not to be a RIAA's "man in black" !

perl processes wich auto-analyze a server mark it as bad only if ;

-server don't provide valid result after a search file request.
-server don't provide source IP for a dl.
-server don't provide result after an udp requests

-server spam bad udp results, after a specific search.
(like the 2/3 akimoto/NL servers (x.x.x.131) for example)

-server don't allow users connexion.
(like switzerland 82.130.102.218, wich display 549,994 users, but always unable to be connected)

-server is suspected for its anbiguous owners
(like main movie server for example, but i have not a real information about this fact and their owners don't communicate ... so, they keep the 'bad servers' category ... however, the main movie and second movie dservers are fully functionnal, and for example, gruk list consider them as good.)

and if these two servers are 'unclean' and powered by RIAA supporters, they participate to the illicit exchanges ... I don't think their customers like it, and none of knowed MD servers are functional.

so, the reason can't be only the ipfilter.dat reference, and my idea is ipfilter is not a good thing, because it doesn't really protect the user ; ipfilter or not, the user IP can be 'trapped' and the shared content can be know by the 'digital sherifs' who are looking for a particular shared song or movie.

ipfilter can be efficient only if it include all internet ip ranges ...

But i know one possible way to protect p2p users from problems ;
don't download copyrighted files !

emule content database, ratiatum 'download community', jamendo files pool, ect ...
edonkey p2P licit contents is not only a concept ; it's a reality, and in this view of things (legal stuff exchanges), we don't need to protect our p2p usage ... and i think in one year, or two, the majors position will change about p2p : because they can't fight p2p, one day, they will take it to build a new bussiness model and get more money.

have a good day with you mule.

I am not going to try to convince you, with argues; among other things, because that those two servers, already are in ipfilter, reason why emule, does not add them, to the list of servers.
And, ipfilter it's useful, at least for me.
And when the servers, ISPs, authorities, goverments, laws, or somebody, force me or say me what I should download and who not, really dear friend, I forguet P2P.
I am not willing to mortgage my freedom, anything before to lose my freedom to think, and to act.

bye

when i talk about ipfilter, i don't want to say it's a bad tool.
i just think it's not a 'good' tool to protect users wich are downloading illicit stuff.
but it can be useful for other case. (filtering spammers ip range, for example, if static.)

since longtime, i never use ipfilter.dat and i never got any problem.
(for now, more of 10 debian mldonkey sessions wich run 24/24, without ipfilter.dat, with 3 differents (french) ISP cnx)

I can't use dedicated servers, like dedibox or OVH, to do that, because many of these IP addresses ranges are ipfiltered ...
(but i use a clean servers list ... )



+1
this is the p2p first thing ; the user freedom.
i don't want to say illicit download is a 'bad' thing ... the users do what they want !
i'am not a censor and i use p2p too ;-) but just think ipfilter.dat is not a 'ideal or total' protection and even can be badly in some case. (for example, some 'good' servers are ipfiltered. or people can think if a server ip is in ipfilter.dat, so, the server is bad.)

++

I have 2 of your server URLs in my update queue, http://peerates.net/peerates/certifiedservers.met and http://peerates.net/peerates/trueservers.met.

The others are http://http://eservlist.no-ip.org/server.met and http://www.severedfisch.com/server.met.

I find it odd that you never had a problem by not using IP Filter. I see that your current list contains 30 servers, however when I use the filter, the list is pruned down to 15, which means that half of the servers in your list are not Bluetack approved. What do you use for scanning and checking your lists?

what is the bluetack reason to add a server ip in the ipfilter file ?
the reason seems to be only the ip range ...

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 ...

so, what is the bluetack reason to include this server ip in the ipfilter.dat ?
peerates.net give a reason when a server is in the bad server list ...

see the report, for example the faked servers list page, all referenced servers in this list are not efficient, and the reason why is clearly written.

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

for peerates.net process, these two servers are not fully functionnal, they don't return any search result.

but for bluetack, it is two 'good' servers ?
because one ip in same range is ipfiltered ... 212.179.18.138



the servers are checked by some perl processes, and with mlnet.
the list are checked with perl script wich get info about servers in the peerates.net db, builded by the previous perl processes.

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.



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

hello sharers ...





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



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.

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?

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.



Source IPFilter


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



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.



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

bye

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



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.

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