|
|
Posted by George Hester on 12/06/05 22:33
"JP" <jp@nospam.aeiou.net> wrote in message news:4394c71b_3@aeinews....
> George Hester wrote:
> > "DB_Story" <DB_Story@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:udKdnR_cI7njbgzeRVn-vg@comcast.com...
> >
> >>This was never part of the original version, but it would be nice IMHO
if
> >>the cache servers did a Whois as part of bringing a new user onto the
> >>network, and if they have the Zero Uploads Hack active, refuse to admit
> >>them. I know that hack is still out there because LeechHammer still
> >
> > catches
> >
> >>and hammers a couple of them a day. I believe that hack can be applied
> >>after they're on the network, but not letting them on in the first place
> >>would be a nice start.
> >>
> >>Technically, if the client does not allow a Whois until the network
> >>connection is active, connect them to a test network, run the Whois,
drop
> >>them off of that and connect them to the live network. It's more than
> >
> > past
> >
> >>time to kill that hack altogether. If you don't want to share, then
don't
> >>share any files.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > That function in Leechhammer is a joke. I had a user that was sharing
files
> > and I was trading with them. Leechheammer ignored them for sharing 0
files.
> > That was the last time I used it.
> >
> > --
> >
> > George Hester
> > _________________________________
> >
>
> Not a LeecHammer problem. Was caused by a bad whois result by WinMX
>
Maybe so but that is a temporal issue. Can't deal with that. I did a whois
immediately after I saw Leechhammer ignore them for sharing 0 files and they
were NOT sharing 0 files. If it is a bad whois from WinMX that Leechhemmer
is using, that is Leechhammers fault I cannot considder that in the mix
also. Leechhammer needs to do that.
--
George Hester
_________________________________
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|