Posted by 1 on 09/27/05 07:43

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 04:24:22 GMT, "George Hester"
<hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"db" <@ .> wrote in message
>news:43388671$0$73608$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>>
>> "ChenHA" <hzhen@freeuk.com> wrote in message
>> news:33tgj1hbpldsp8980stcdjlbnkpirirthk@4ax.com...
><snip>
>>I believe the WinMX client, at least in
>>primary mode, exchanges addresses with other peers on the network during
>>operation to maintain a local cache of peers to connect to without
>>necessarily having to call on a peer cache
>>
>
>I think I can prove this is the case. I have NOT installed the patch.
>There is no need for it. I operate as a Primary. I did NOT go down. I
>have been running just as fine as I ever have. What that says to me is the
>so-called Peer Cache's are not necessary once you are in the Network. Since
>the Peer Caches find the Primaries (I think I need help on this) a hosts
>file could just redirect to a port 80 on the Primary which WinMX understands
>(the Primary) and there you go. You found your Primary. At that point you
>could lose that Primary and pick some one elses up. Or we could become Peer
>Caches? Why not? This is going to have to happen. The RIAA is not stupid.
>As we speak they are probably constructing letters to the Peer Caches or
>their ISPs. There are only a finite number of them. Then they will get the
>Cease and Desist letter and the hosts files becomes worthless. There will
>be a few people still left in the Network (like me because I don't need nor
>even have the patch installed) and so I am NOT dependent on the Peer Caches.
>Listen I was NOT the only one that stayed up. There were others. But not
>many.

George... I didn't go down either, but then I run 8 primaries that
all get linked to each other, so I may turn into an island all by
myself someday (no waiting in line 2!). I did put a 9th machine
online to check out the patch and it had the now famous typos in it
that got fixed (and re-posted). BTW, even with the typos (missing
spaces between a couple entries), the patch still worked. I saw the
total number of chat channels go from over 2,000 to about 200 when
winmx.com first went down. Now there are about 1500 again. I have
you linked as a connected primary, at least until Windoze eventually
does you in and you need to reboot- then you'll need the newer hosts
file. You have been xxxxX22_64139 on WinMX xxxxxxxx1871 for about 2
months now that I know of, and yes, you are still there today.
(x's inserted for username/IP code (respect))
I may have poisoned the pie here though by linking the 9th machine to
my 8 system. The other 8 may have 'learned' a route to the new peer
cache by linking to primaries connected to the 9th machine - built a
bridge- oops.

I'm not sure if the RIAA can shut down peer servers, it's not their
program (peer servers). Perhaps a tongue-lashing at Frontcode for
making a program that can be operated by 3rd parties? My company's
law firm is checking into the liabilities of being a peer server. I'd
set one up here but I'm not so sure of the needed bandwidth to be a
peer server. I have an OC-3 line here and a leased T1 proxy in the
USA, but they might get swamped and I do need the lines to conduct my
business, well, daylight hours M-Th anyway (we don't work on fridays).
I'd love to hear from a server as to what the actual traffic flow is
being a server. I think having dozens of them would make it nearly
impossible to ever shut down WinMX again. Instead of open-nap list,
we could have peer server list, long list, so no server had to stay up
continously- that would make it even harder to shut it down again.
Cross-linking peer caches by primaries would make the system quite
stable.

[Back to original message]