|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 09/26/05 23:16
db wrote:
> "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3ppnd2FbgqmbU1@individual.net...
>
>>db wrote:
>>
>>>Hopefully it's a very easy package to put to work as all that's required
>>>is the user place the following 3 files into their WinMX program folder
>>>and restart WinMX (if it's currently running).
>>>
>>>Feedback appreciated.
>>>
>>
>>What's your feeling about using bendmx in comparison to PG2?
>
>
> I don't really know much about PG/PW as I haven't used them (at least for a
> long while). I wouldn't knock them at all for their ability to block
> successfully, and imagine they have some decent additional features (I
> believe PG2 auto-updates, for instance).
>
> My own 'issues' with them, if you can call it that, is that I think their
> blocklists tend to cover many millions of addresses (last time I looked)
> that I believe are probably totally unnecessary and I wouldn't be surprised,
> if that is the case, that there was a degree of 'collateral damage' involved
> because of that (blocks covering friendly addresses). Another point is that
> the PG/PW lists, as far as I'm aware, are made to cover many different
> clients/networks and also affect all applications on the user's PC. I like
> the BendMX 'Winsock wrapper' method, personally, because it's transparent in
> operation; probably uses a lot less resources; is active only when running
> WinMX; is limited to blocking only a fairly small number of very specific
> addresses which are highly likely to be 'hostile' (it's usually plainly
> obvious); is, hopefully, very easy for a user to implement if they feel they
> would like to use it; is open-source.
>
> Don't get me wrong I wouldn't say "it is better" against other methods, it's
> just another method of blocking anti-p2p companies that I feel has some
> benefits over others.
>
> I'd suggest that folks, if they do want to block, try different things for
> themselves and make their own mind up as to what they like (as should always
> be the case!).
>
> P.S. I should also mention that as far as I'm aware, and probably only until
> possibly very recently, applications like PG & PW never took care of some of
> the worst media company fakers on the WPN; the dynamically addressed fakers.
> For as far as I know PG & PW's blocklists still do not contain these
> dynamics unless a user specifically adds a 'non-standard' list of IPs (such
> as those being listed on http://www.winmxworld.com/, which is, in my quite
> biased opinion, probably the best list I've ever seen outside of my own,
> lmao (not saying I'm perfect at all, but at least they contain the
> dynamics!)).
>
> Just pro's an con's is all. Each to their own. ;)
>
> What do I use here? Router & Kerio 2.1.5.
>
I have just emailed Josh from winmxworld with your compiled list.
i think we all need to pull together on this one - I keep meaning to
update my fakes site too - just haven't had enough time recently to sit
and potter with my pooter.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|