|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 12/11/05 17:42
George Hester wrote:
> "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.
>
LeecHammer *can't* do that - it has to rely on the winMx whois the same
as any other anti-leech add-on would have to.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|