Identifying vast majority of random modstr sending mods

[winmann]

stulle ich weiß das eigentlich nur noch der aj das schlimmste ist was dem ed2k passiert ist da sie es geschaft haben fast 30-50% das netz zu infiltrieren es mag sein das keines der antileech lösungen perfekt ist doch merke ich weitaus besser download und upload verteilungen mit dem Ca prinzip als mit dem DLP erst leztens bei einem releas hatte ich 4 xtremes als releaser ok wer weiß obs welche waren ich glaub nicht und genau bei solchen leuten fängt der DLP an zu straucheln weil er ausgetrixt wird mit den CA hab ich gute erfahrungen gemacht und man kann sehen wie gut er die leute ausortieren kann gerecht und weitaus mehr aj und mods die vorgeben es wern andere rausfiltert nix gegen deine arbeit aber ich finde das zukunftweisend

und eine ansicht noch die ich immer noch vertrete das wenn der standart mulie ein solches creditsystem kriegen würde wers weitaus besser fürs netzerk den die leute die mit dem standart ausgesaugt werden sind noch immer die dummen!

ich hoffe echt das irgend wann einer einen weg findet diese sinlose zerstörung des emule netzes aufzuhalten doch momentan scheint der CA die beste lösung zu sein !

ihr macht alle ne tolle arbeit

ich find bloß einfach nur noch scheiße das grade die leute die ne fette leitung ihr eigen nenen noch aj nutzen den geiz scheint wirklich geil zu sein

[Tuxman]

(*rumeditier*)

Na ja, winmann, in Deutschland ist DSL meist asymmetrisch, da hat halt nicht jeder megabyteweise Uploadbandbreite zur Verfügung. Das ist aber kein eMule-Phänomen. Rat mal, wieso öffentliche BT-Tracker so schleichend lahmarschig sind, obwohl BT doch soooo viel schneller ist.



Der CA ist sicher auch nicht das Nonplusultra, aber er bietet zumindest die zuverlässigste Erkennung von Leechern an, weil er Leecher erst dann als Leecher bezeichnet, wenn sie leechen; dies allerdings stante pede.
Wie genau wird DLP denn "ausgetrickst"? 'n bisschen mehr technische Informationen würden der Diskussion vielleicht ein wenig mehr helfen.



(Wo hast du die "30 - 50 %" her, wenn die Biester sich seltenst zu erkennen geben? Dafür komme ich in den Warteschlangen aber noch erstaunlich flink voran.)

[pesti]

30-50% is absolute nonsense. This is first always very much depending on file. A aj user will never load rare files .......

Spike2 has explained it on top very nicely. It would be against the rules of the devs. Nevertheless, one must be able to discuss such a subject without insulting himself. And if taz does not see that such a ban would be unfair, then just not, everybody may have his opinion. If such a ban was obstructed of course, the mod would be to be arranged as bad, no question.

@Stulle and no attack: you must admit that you very often attack taz already on the offi. In this case thematically you are right of course, but the tone also does the music. Funny enough there come no contributions of other modders.

[Stulle]

so what was wrong with being frank pesti? should i have replied in lengths risking something slipped myself? i tried to finish the whole discussion ASAP but much rather than thinking "oh well, he's not gonna do it, i do like the CA better anyway, so whatever" taz went on here about how i would censor him in any spot. this is entire nonsense!

i cannot actually believe to write this myself but Tuxman's post is just about summing up the other side of that whole old feud and this makes his post a good posting. the DLP is an infinite "cat and mouse game", i grant you that, but once identified a user will not gain nothing unless he is using a fair mod. the CA, however, may detect leecherous behaviour but to do that it needs time and we probably waste badnwidth. that is the whole point. this discussion has been around since the CA was introduced and it gave an awful lot of bad blood and wounds to the modding community. this all has been an entire PR fiasko for eMule or at least the modding scene. restarting and boiling up this discussion is probably the worst thing that the evergrowing less active eMule community can handle and i consider it a lot more responseful to stop this feud from being boiled up again rather than insisting to argue on things even the former "party leaders" agreed to disagree on. DLP or CA is just a matter of taste and while the DLP has had to suffer at least one attack - not even counting thise whole thing, yet - i made sure not to attack the CA in my posts out of respect for other oppinions which i had to learn and build up over the time of that feud.

anyway, i am not attacking taz on the official board without any further ado. i leave him be and even try to help him understand stuff. i already admited - on the official board - that my most recent attempt was not all that nice until the end but honestly, what would you do if somebody apparently less qualified would come to your job and be like "you're not doing it entirely right!"? i expect any mechanic would be like "whatever, screw you" as soon as that dork leaves. now, if somebody tells you to not just fasten the screws of the newly changed tires but also to polish them furiously, what will you do when you are certain that the customers very next action will be to drive through all the mud on the company property? you'll be annoyed and won't understand what this would be for because you think "fairly clean is even cleaner than how we got the car". now imagine somebody wandering about telling you that it's not enough to have functional code that works just as expected but for the sake of some weird sense of completness you are urged to add various extra lines that achieve nothing extra. it's like saying "thou shalt not use the key of forsaken kings to open the mystic gates of old" rather than "don't go in that old room/place". now do further imagine someone is not just trying to make you write unecessary code but also to reinvent the code to comply a wrong sense of formality. it would be like with the German Fräulein which is generally used for young unmarried females but you are urged to use it for a 70 year old unmarried single woman for some weird sense of formality which entirely obscures the idea behind the word.

this is the kind of things that make me freak out when writing with taz. oh, right, and stuff like "eMule MorphXT users deserve better than that" when apparently he got no clue that Preview first chunk works just fine in MorphXT but tries to educate me on how it ain't working just fine. ask yourself, would you have your neighbor tell you "you ain't gonna bring up your kids like that! your way is wrong and mine is right!" although that neighbor never even saw how your kids behave? i may doubt it...

so, keep on trying to blame me but at least those being a little sensible to some rules of fairness will hopefully agree with me in some poitns.

[taz]

This isn't a CA / DLP issue, it's pure DLP :

If is justified and it is possible (we can identify) - punish / ban.

I'm failing to understand why banning based on nick, modstr or user hash is more fair then narrowed country ban ...
In terms of possible innocents getting unfair punishment we're talking on way smaller numbers than the potential (and actual in case of user hash) nubmer of users that are being treated unfairly (just for example - users that used a leecher mod with "clean install", migrated to non leecher without "clean install" and are getting punished due to detected nick ...).
Besides if my numbers are questioned (i.e. that >99% of Israelli users using a mod based on 0.49b official, the modstr they send is random. As for the rest of Israelli users using 0.49b based mods <1% - rest assure most are using other leecher clients) - go ahead and collect your own numbers (for fair collection don't use a DLP based mod, rather vanilla with IP2C and full modstr in upload queue and known clients - and sort by mod).

As for the personal issue :

1. 10'x pesti - you don't really want a survey based on possible reasons of most other modders hush ...
2. this is a pattern - I post a technical (good / bad / justified or not) post, most of the times Stulle tries to mock me or discard it's validity.
3. About the ICS issue - Stulle "forgot" to mention that he knows that preview parts weight logic at ICS is faulted (reversed), and that my message was on PM (not knowing that at MorphXT a bypass that invokes official chunk selection is used if download preview chunks first is selected, and that this bypass won't be needed after the fix - which is not applied since it was pointed out by me ...)

[jerrybg]

@taz:

- i fail to see what this has to do with "Identifying" of random modstring

btw, was one of the first features i added in my beginnings, as it seemed to me so fascinating , removed it some time ago

- starting the thread by accusation of censorship, ohh c'mon, what response you've been waiting from the defendant , huh?
- perhaps China, maybe even Germany would follow in your selective country ban
- certainly the vast majority of eD2k network won't miss much from Israeli leecher clients, as the shared content is usually localised, isn't it
- consider this, if Isreali people have chose to stay apart, let them, and DO NOT force their way upon the rest of the network

if you won't treat your enemy fairly, you'll become an enemy

[Stulle]

taz, i know why ICS works in morph but you still claimed it would not work and when i told you it worked you were trying to educate me how to do business. in Germany we say "make your homeworks first before trying to prove people wrong".

i kept it technical but you moved it here for personal reasons and then you went on about how i am a censor and preoccupied with my apparent dislike of your despicable person which i consider very personal on your end. expect to receive replies you provoke. i have been perfectly technical to the point when you got personal. i did not even post enough words to be mocking or insulting!

as for the technical issue, jerryBG just like Spike2 are apparently agreeing with me, so i figure my replies were perfectly accurate. there is a major difference between guessing anyone we cannot identify as "good" is bad and everyone who uses the default nick of a leecher mod or even their modstring is bad. the major difference is that somebody who got another name or another nick which we do not know will not be banned, quite unlike your idea. it is like using tanks on pigeons. sure, pigeons die eventually but do you honestly need to play war on pigeons?

[taz]

Let every reader make up his mind (just read).

ICS issue facts :

1. I post a simple optimization for some parts of partfile.cpp, Stulle states trival - WiZaRd posts more simplified code.
2. I posted 2 fixes for ICS logic :
a. ICS mode selection (based on rareness of parts) - I suggested counting sources of only not downloaded parts. WiZaRd point this to be faulty - I still think I'm right.
b. proper calculation of download preview chunks first - ICS original code here is faulty.
3. MorphXT is being released without any of the above fixes.
4. I'm PMing Stulle being worried of MorphXT users not getting a solved issue fix (if anyone questions my motives read this issue until it's end).
5. Stulle points me to the bypass code. I'm admiting to be wrong about the way my PM was written also said I'm sorry. Still stating proper way is to fix ICS code.
6. Looking at X-Ray beta code - I notice the probelm exists there. I'm PMing JvA pointing the probelm as well possible solutions : my fix for ICS code or the bypass applied at MorphXT code. He choses the latest.
7. Stulle goes public on PM'ed stuff trying to show I missbehaved.
8. Further more Stulle misleads readers : MoprphXT suggets ICS or official chunk selection. Why should a user choice of ICS not being followed if he also selects download preview chunks first ? - becauase at the time bypass was applied, ICS fix wasn't available. Now it is - and Stulle does want my name on credit for fix ... (edited: Stulle please make up your mind is ICS really selectable ???)


Trivial fixes / optimizations :

Stulle seldom uses that word before applying to my suggestions, despite the fact that at least in 2 other cases he could have but have chosen not too : tuxman poining unused var or label (I can't recall), and JvA poining a redundent set of var values since it's done later on via another function ...


DLP, CA & censorship :

Different approaches are valid and arguments can be claimed with no wounds - unless someone is not welcoming his style of posting (Stulle chosen language on this thread can cause "wounds", flames or alike). Civilized discussions can take place, unless the censor (or moderation power holder) is afraid of his own style. There were and there will be derived mods that are changing leecher detection and treatment from their origin - no one seems to have problems discussing it ...


Aggresiveness :

You accused me of such (my PM on ICS issue which was private out of none personal motivation), however look for at the threat Stulle post regarding the possibilty of someone posting MorphXT sources (changed or not, adjusted to VS2008 or not) at the thread I've tried to help someone to compile MorphXT with VS2008. Was anyone suggesting to post such sources ???


Matureness :

Guess who wrote :

"i did not write the code but only kept maintaining the DLP. i added the AJ detection to Morph" in order to justify knowingly banning of about 4% of ed2k users ...



Let every reader make up his own mind about Stulle and myself in terms of motivation, manners and who is mocking the other !

[Stulle]

wow, you are getting it all wrong...

ICS: for me the whole thing starts with 4. and what got me worked up that you are daring to tell me that the users would deserve better than what i am doing when i was perfectly right. besides, you insisted it was working wrongly when it clearly did not at no point. besides, MorphXT is not allowing ICS in many cases so it is perfectly fine to not just keep that function but to rely on it in the rare case of enabled ICS. and about misleading, the only guy misleading is you. there is no point in using advanced ICS logic when the official way is working good and makes no problems whatsoever. the result is what counts and not something else. the fact MorphXT prohibits certain features if there is close to no gain is a well known fact, too. stop posting half truths and half pictures. to be able to talk about the code of a project the size of MorphXT you need to study more than a function or two!
JvA has got nothing to do with this at all, i never talked about the technical details of this with him.

trivial fixes and optimizations: learn english or keep your trap shut. that gibberish is making no sense whatsoever. try again, better luck next time attempting to write english. -.-

DLP/CA/whatever: you can discuss this wherever you want but the DLP thread is certainly not the right place and i don't think the Xtreme subforum in general is either. if you feel need to discuss this do it somewhere neutral, that is not asked too much. besides, why do you think this old discussion needs to be warmed up again, anyway? i ain't gonna change my mind on this and thus will neither Morph nor Xtreme nor any of my other mods use the CA in favor of the DLP or DLP mechanisms. so why should i allow discussion on unwanted features? go to a neutral place and try convincing USERS there but get off my projects, related threads and subforums to do so. that is not being unfair or anything, that is just asking for some manners in regards to starting discussions. you should not be too flabbergasted when i loose my manners when you don't see fit to have some manners at your end.

Aggrassiveness: you gotta be fucking kidding me here. you are talking about this, right? where the hell have i been aggrassiv there? i was helping the dude getting it to compile myself. all i won't approve of various source edits flying around the net. this is also a matter of manners and respect. as long as there is an active MorphXT team it is up to the MorphXT team to distribute builds and sources and not to anybody else. i was just telling the guy exactly this. the reason is also fairly simple, if there is twenty different packages of which we/i only published a few how on earth could i guarantee they work as expected? there is no way and i don't want to bother figuring out why somebody is having problems. there was nothing aggressiv about that at all.
are you feeling the floor slip or why are you trying to hold on to such tiny straws in order to discredit me?

matureness: ah, right... now, that makes... no sense. i think it is more mature to deal with these matters effectively - such as swiftly removing it from the DLP upon request - and admitting one fails every once in a while. did you even realize i am not actually contributing to the DLP? i am doing maintenance work that consist of compiling the .dll, distributing it and the sources and updating the lists according to reports i get from people like Myth88, Riso64Bit or zz_fly. i went as far as admitting that the version before the latest was not too good but i will still take responsibility for other peoples misses because i did not check myself well enough. that is a lot more mature than just pointing the finger and say "look, he has done something questionable in the past". in fact, my reaction to the whole AJ detection issue from the aMule board got me some nice responses from the aMule team. it seems i have handled the issue fairly well at last.

btw, is this your idea of making your threat against me come true? oh, right, you still did not tell me why you saw fit to threaten me in the first place. if you figure it out please tell me, i am really curious on this one!

now, i hope every reader will find these bits of information a little more useful than the poor attempt of taz to descredit my person. i somehow think your grudge against me must be a whole lot bigger than mine on you... i eventually forget the details and stick to what's happening now but you seem to rely on digging through old dirt to get back on me...

[taz]

Having both Stulle and myself laying our point of views to the readers - I guess it's now up to everyone to make up their minds ...