|
|
Posted by db on 09/27/05 00:56
"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:3prdvlFbim06U1@individual.net...
> 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.
Well imo updating websites suck so any excuse is a good one. ;P
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|