Official eMule-Board: Razorback Servers Seized By Belgian Police - Official eMule-Board

Jump to content


  • (22 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22

Razorback Servers Seized By Belgian Police

#381 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 10 August 2006 - 12:53 PM

Oh dear

The day emule respects the softlimit of the server, instead of publishing the whole files shared by the user, you can ask me to add features.

Right now emule ignores (and always ignored) the message sent by the eserver (softLimit reached) and happily continue to send chunks of 200 files (and consumes credits for nothing)
0

#382 User is offline   tHeWiZaRdOfDoS 

  • Man, what a bunch of jokers...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5630
  • Joined: 28-December 02

Posted 10 August 2006 - 01:34 PM

Lugdunummaster I think if you would provide a better overview about the Server-protocol then a lot of problems could be solved... I dunno whether you talk to the official devs about the software, the used opcodes and such but I've never seen a proper overview for other devs :(
0

#383 User is offline   PacoBell 

  • Professional Lurker ¬_¬ (so kyoot!)
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 7296
  • Joined: 04-February 03

Posted 10 August 2006 - 01:49 PM

lugdunum said:

The server now sends a message to the user when the soft limit is reached "WARNING : You have too many shares for this server".
This message can be modified by nbuser
Did you mean this the message or is there a more standard opcode that's sent out?

This post has been edited by PacoBell: 10 August 2006 - 01:50 PM

Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Math is delicious!
MmMm! Mauna Loa Milk Chocolate Toffee Macadamias are little drops of Heaven ^_^
Si vis pacem, para bellum DIE SPAMMERS DIE!

#384 User is offline   CiccioBastardo 

  • Doomsday Executor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Italian Moderators
  • Posts: 5541
  • Joined: 22-November 03

Posted 10 August 2006 - 07:15 PM

View Postlugdunummaster, on Aug 10 2006, 08:23 AM, said:

Quote

Precisely! I mean, is it so hard to send a message listing the filter(s) matching the query?


Nope. In fact this is implemented since ages.

Try to publish a file with ketamine in its filename on DsNo1

Then again, servers owners are... server owners. Not guys that may satisfy all your past, current and future dreams.

filtering is done at publish time only.

So no message is sent at retrieval time. Would be quite useless and very expensive to include in a search answer a message like :

NNNN files were filtered because of filter[0]=(#FORMAT dll)|(#FORMAT sys)
PPPPPP files were filtered because of filter[1]=(#SIZE<5)
...
XXXXX files were filtered because of filter[78]=!(.)
CCCCCC files where rejected because of their hash (whatever name was published)

Because even if you searched for "wikipedia", results may miss "The king of wikipedia" that you really wanted to fetch. No ?

Server owners have the tools, they are free to use them the way they want.


Sorry, I missing something.
How can a single string be more expensive of what should be a long list of sources + metadata?
Moreover I can't see it useless. If I know server X filters my requests for "snorky" I'll never try to make a query for those words on it (global searching is different, but with a feedback from a server it is possible to exclude the filtering server from the search, I belive (less traffic, less credits used)).
And no, the feedback on the search should not be made on filtered content (as, if you have already blocked it at publish time, you should not know it ever existed, unless, as Wizard suggested, you have a separate list for them). You send a warning based on query words.: king AND wiki -> send a warning wiki NOT king -> do not send a warning

What could be wrong in this?
The problem is not the client, it's the user
0

#385 User is offline   pepe0008 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: 16-March 06

Posted 24 September 2006 - 08:45 AM

Hmm, kind of off-topic and newbie question... but...

Why is not open-sourced the lugdunum eserver software? (apart from because his author doesn't want it to be, that is).

Well, I guess the question should be: why doesn't lugdunum want to release his edonkey server as open-source?

Thanks for reading.
0

#386 User is offline   strip 

  • Splendid Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 218
  • Joined: 19-October 02

Posted 24 September 2006 - 09:49 AM

Server program has never been opensourced. The now defunct metamachines company gave the source to lugdunummaster. I do not know under what conditions.

It would be interesting to know if these conditions will suffer any legal change. Who is the owner now?

This post has been edited by strip: 24 September 2006 - 09:53 AM

0

#387 User is offline   pepe0008 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: 16-March 06

Posted 24 September 2006 - 10:29 AM

View Poststrip, on Sep 24 2006, 11:49 AM, said:

Server program has never been opensourced. The now defunct metamachines company gave the source to lugdunummaster.

Yes, that "seems" to be the case, also according to this web interview.

However, says lugdunum in this very thread:

Quote

Well.. it took me one month to write first eserver.

Therefore I am under the impression that Lugdunum had access to the original MetaMachine edonkey server sources, but that he wrote his own version of an edonkey server from scratch with the knowledge thus acquired.

Did MetaMachine impose any legal restriction(s) on Lugdunum for his new edonkey server version? If so, what can we expect after MetaMachine recently trying to shut down the edonkey network?

Is open-sourcing the Lugdunum edonkey server possible? Does Lugdunum want to do it?

What is the rationale behind whatever decision is taken?

Inquiring minds want to know...
0

#388 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 25 September 2006 - 06:54 AM

Quote

Therefore I am under the impression that Lugdunum had access to the original MetaMachine edonkey server sources, but that he wrote his own version of an edonkey server from scratch with the knowledge thus acquired.

Did MetaMachine impose any legal restriction(s) on Lugdunum for his new edonkey server version? If so, what can we expect after MetaMachine recently trying to shut down the edonkey network?

Is open-sourcing the Lugdunum edonkey server possible? Does Lugdunum want to do it?

What is the rationale behind whatever decision is taken?

Inquiring minds want to know...


Original dserver was written by Metamachine, but could not handle more than 4000 users, because of poor design (and sources being the same for window and unix)

I did a complete reverse engineering of this program and network sniffing (as did emule for the client).

I did many patches in assembly in the binary image of dserver. Servers were then able to reach 100.000 users.

Then, assuming Metamachine was not interesting into maintaining themselves dserver (they were working on Overnet, wich was not using dservers anymore), I asked them if I could have a copy of sources so that I could go one step ahead.

Metamachine agreed and gave me a copy of their sources. As they were in C++ and with too many levels of abstraction (nice for the programmers, but performance killers), I decided to just delete them all and not spend any time on them. Sometime, it's better to throw the whole thing in the bin and not pollute your head with wrong design.

Later, when it became obvious that edonkey/emule network still needed big servers because Kademlia clients were not yet ready, I wrote a 100% lugdunum implementation, in C language and with the right design. This was three years ago (Sep 2003).
This C version let me add new protocol extension to reduce overall bandwith (zip compression, udp requests aggregation), and to reduce RAM usage with special allocators.

I own eserver 100%, and it is not open source because many bad guys would use the source to build fake servers. Fake clients already exist and harm the network.
0

#389 User is offline   Firnus 

  • Fedora user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3530
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 25 September 2006 - 08:13 AM

View Postlugdunummaster, on Sep 25 2006, 06:54 AM, said:

because many bad guys would use the source to build fake servers

Fake server still exist without your source.

And there are fake edonkey client based, even if it's closed source. I don't think close source can protect efficiently.

But it's your choice :flowers:

(Thanks for all)

This post has been edited by Firnus: 25 September 2006 - 08:14 AM

Vous souhaitez être aider pour un problème sur eMule ?
Parce que nous ne sommes pas devin: /!\ A Lire Avant De Poster /!\
Parce que certains ont bossé pour proposer des 'tutoriels' le plus clair possible: TADELU
Parce que VOUS êtes intelligent > High ID: comprendre les tutos pour mieux les appliquer

TRFM >> Des infos sur les Mods

> Le libre à Lille - -

If you are in english section: sorry for my bad english .... I 'll do my best .... ;)
0

#390 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 25 September 2006 - 09:04 AM

Quote

Fake server still exist without your source.


Sure, but they are obvious fakes and only stupid users may still be fooled by them.

This kind of argument is quite wrong indeed.

If my sources were available, even a bad programmer could easily add stuff and claim it's a lugdunum server, and harm the network.

Without sources, you have to be a really good programmer to do a clone. So far some programmers tried and failed.

Consider if you had to do an emule clone, without access to emule sources.
How many days do you think you'll have to work before having a working thing ?
0

#391 User is offline   Firnus 

  • Fedora user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3530
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 26 September 2006 - 12:01 AM

View Postlugdunummaster, on Sep 25 2006, 09:04 AM, said:

Consider if you had to do an emule clone, without access to emule sources.
How many days do you think you'll have to work before having a working thing ?
Even, with the source, i never tried .... :P

But i think RIAA/MPAA can pay really good developpeur an ingenner , no ?

I think actually the fake server is good for what they want, and don't need more developpement into (surely Log développement , not in Lugdunum server)
I think the obvious fake of 'fake' server is to discourage people to use eMule, not to had a good server.

I don't see who can try to make a good server and can be bad for eMule community, but .... maybe ... ??

:flowers:
Vous souhaitez être aider pour un problème sur eMule ?
Parce que nous ne sommes pas devin: /!\ A Lire Avant De Poster /!\
Parce que certains ont bossé pour proposer des 'tutoriels' le plus clair possible: TADELU
Parce que VOUS êtes intelligent > High ID: comprendre les tutos pour mieux les appliquer

TRFM >> Des infos sur les Mods

> Le libre à Lille - -

If you are in english section: sorry for my bad english .... I 'll do my best .... ;)
0

#392 User is offline   EvolutionCrazy 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1226
  • Joined: 05-May 04

Posted 26 September 2006 - 11:11 AM

View Postlugdunummaster, on Sep 25 2006, 08:54 AM, said:

I own eserver 100%, and it is not open source because many bad guys would use the source to build fake servers. Fake clients already exist and harm the network.


:respect:

that kind of choice is welcomed in most of the cases :)

@Firnus what do you think will happen if starting from now someone invent a new client that work in a new network, everything cyphered and hardly renversable by just sniffing the network traffic, and register it as a patent deny ANY kind of usage/modification and so on?
What will happen when a RIAA member will show up in court that they have a modified client used to track the users?
At least the would be sued for patent/trademark/license violation and nobody would be able to certify that the logs produced by their software is correct and not wrongly builded :-k
There are three kinds of people in this world: people who watch things happen ... people who complain about things that happen ... and people who make things happen...
0

#393 User is offline   Firnus 

  • Fedora user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3530
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 26 September 2006 - 11:20 AM

View PostEvolutionCrazy, on Sep 26 2006, 11:11 AM, said:

@Firnus what do you think will happen if starting from now someone invent a new client that work in a new network, everything cyphered and hardly renversable by just sniffing the network traffic, and register it as a patent deny ANY kind of usage/modification and so on?
You don't think client like this still exist ?
There are a legal problem in france with 2 society who use a program like this ...


Quote

What will happen when a RIAA member will show up in court that they have a modified client used to track the users?
At least the would be sued for patent/trademark/license violation and nobody would be able to certify that the logs produced by their software is correct and not wrongly builded :-k
RIAA had already Fake server, nobody would be able to certify bla bal ...
They don't need to had a good server, just i explain, the only think they want it's a serveur with good Log (send shared , asking source etc ...) AND i'm sure they had sever like this.
Vous souhaitez être aider pour un problème sur eMule ?
Parce que nous ne sommes pas devin: /!\ A Lire Avant De Poster /!\
Parce que certains ont bossé pour proposer des 'tutoriels' le plus clair possible: TADELU
Parce que VOUS êtes intelligent > High ID: comprendre les tutos pour mieux les appliquer

TRFM >> Des infos sur les Mods

> Le libre à Lille - -

If you are in english section: sorry for my bad english .... I 'll do my best .... ;)
0

#394 User is offline   kewlFFT 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 01-August 04

Posted 26 September 2006 - 12:34 PM

lugdunummaster  :respect:
It makes a lot of sense, making it public would trigger the apparition of plenty of new servers, some fake, some bugged some good. This could become a big mess.
Respect for your coding of very high quality dedicated to efficiency and speed.
0

#395 User is offline   Firnus 

  • Fedora user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3530
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 26 September 2006 - 01:25 PM

Heu ....

I nevr say lugdunummaster had to put his job Open-source, he do what he want.

But i say, put his job closed source don't protect from false server.

And :worthy: lugdunummaster
Vous souhaitez être aider pour un problème sur eMule ?
Parce que nous ne sommes pas devin: /!\ A Lire Avant De Poster /!\
Parce que certains ont bossé pour proposer des 'tutoriels' le plus clair possible: TADELU
Parce que VOUS êtes intelligent > High ID: comprendre les tutos pour mieux les appliquer

TRFM >> Des infos sur les Mods

> Le libre à Lille - -

If you are in english section: sorry for my bad english .... I 'll do my best .... ;)
0

#396 User is offline   pepe0008 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: 16-March 06

Posted 26 September 2006 - 02:05 PM

View PostFirnus, on Sep 26 2006, 03:25 PM, said:

But i say, put his job closed source don't protect from false server.

It certainly does not protect the network from lame fake servers. But lame fake servers are too lame to do much evil.
0

#397 User is offline   Firnus 

  • Fedora user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3530
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 26 September 2006 - 02:38 PM

View Postpepe0008, on Sep 26 2006, 02:05 PM, said:

But lame fake servers are too lame to do much evil.
I don't underestimate the developper who can work for RIAA/MPAA.

I don't know for that, i think actually, it's not important to break the network with good fake server.
And , i don't think a good fake server can, break the network. Maybe i'm wrong , but i'm not sure . Are you sure fake server are too lame to do much evil ?

Maybe legal procedure can block some jugement, but if procedure become more simply, did you know the number of people goes to trial because at first start of eMule they goes to fake server ?

This post has been edited by Firnus: 26 September 2006 - 02:39 PM

Vous souhaitez être aider pour un problème sur eMule ?
Parce que nous ne sommes pas devin: /!\ A Lire Avant De Poster /!\
Parce que certains ont bossé pour proposer des 'tutoriels' le plus clair possible: TADELU
Parce que VOUS êtes intelligent > High ID: comprendre les tutos pour mieux les appliquer

TRFM >> Des infos sur les Mods

> Le libre à Lille - -

If you are in english section: sorry for my bad english .... I 'll do my best .... ;)
0

#398 User is offline   pepe0008 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: 16-March 06

Posted 26 September 2006 - 06:17 PM

I know I am going a little further off-topic, but the chance to talk to Lugdunum and other expert users here is just too good to pass...

What I am worried about eserver not been open-source, it's the danger of a kind of "fossilization" in the protocol. (http was extended, email was extended with MIME, etc.)

I know pretty well the differences between bittorrent and edonkey, and each has its uses. However, the thing the edonkey protocol is sorely missing when compared with bittorrent is the ability to share several files as a single entity, for example consider the contents of this torrent:

Quote

Name.............................................................................Size
/Guy Debord - Comments On The Society Of The Spectacle.pdf 560.67 kb
/Guy Debord - La Societe Du Spectacle - 1973.avi 699.47 mb
/Guy Debord - La Societe Du Spectacle - 1973.srt 106.30 kb
/Guy Debord - La Societe du Spectacle.doc 444.50 kb
/Guy Debord, The Society Of The Spectacle.pdf 545.83 kb


The good thing about this torrent, is that its files are neatly grouped, as they should be. The bad thing, is that in 15 or 30 days this torrent is going to be dead. Those files can be put in the edonkey network so they will survive a very long time (or forever!), but then they are no longer an united entity, and that makes its proper sharing (and comprehension!) much harder, for both the sharer and the leecher.

Do you, Lugdunum, see extending the protocol to support some kind of "virtual elink" possible, so that it would group together several files in one single edonkey link?

[PS: yeah, we have RAR and whatnot; but the masses of users are what make a network's worth, and the masses do UNRAR whatever they want to use, delete the RAR, keep the decompressed files, and then either the files disappear from the edonkey network, or the grouping of those related files is lost again...]

[PS2: sharing not-for-profit is legal in Spain, so nobody sermonize me, I pay religiously the "special tax" (here called canon) on blank media (it's mandatory). Thank you.]
0

#399 User is offline   EvolutionCrazy 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1226
  • Joined: 05-May 04

Posted 26 September 2006 - 08:25 PM

pepe0008 collections are there to share multiple files with just one link, just like a torrent... but with ed2k you can share only one of those files, with torrent it's even more harder :)
There are three kinds of people in this world: people who watch things happen ... people who complain about things that happen ... and people who make things happen...
0

#400 User is offline   pepe0008 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: 16-March 06

Posted 26 September 2006 - 08:31 PM

View PostEvolutionCrazy, on Sep 26 2006, 10:25 PM, said:

pepe0008 collections are there to share multiple files with just one link

What "collections"? I've never heard of them.
0

  • Member Options

  • (22 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users