Posted by db on 10/12/05 03:10

"George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SSU2f.40713$K91.11209@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> "db" <@ .> wrote in message
> news:434bbb68$0$49804$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
>>
>> "George Hester" <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hLN2f.38414$7b6.31900@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> > "speeder" <no.spam@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> > news:bc5mk1dgl4afsb4k7sq8lkl17cesjq38as@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:28:02 GMT, "George Hester"
>> >> <hesterloli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Speeder I really do not care what you think I sound like.
>> >>
>> >> That's good for you, George because I really don't know what to think
>> >> of you at times.
>> >>
>> >> >Fact is the WinMX
>> >> >has performed poorly all day. And getting connected problems is NOT
>> >> >what
>> > I
>> >> >have been saying.
>> >>
>> >> Not you, George, but maybe others? (hint, hint). With the peer cache
>> >> server instability, you can't expect everyone to keep up.
>> >>
>> >> >There are other issues which you may have addressed as
>> >> >Network instability and lack of peers. Of course you could have said
>> > that
>> >> >at anytime.
>> >>
>> >> But I did say it, George, please listen instead of trying to make what
>> >> I think of you.
>> >>
>> >> >I have never experienced this level of bullshit in WinMX prior
>> >> >to the Big Squeeze. Never. Lack of peers is likely true but then
> why?
>> >>
>> >> Why? Something to do with the "Big Squeeze" maybe?
>> >>
>> >> >Getting connected is only half the problem.
>> >>
>> >> Yes! Right on the money you are, George! It's not called peer-to-peer
>> >> for nothing.
>> >>
>> >> Tell ya what. If you still think your problem is due to fake peer
>> >> cache servers, you post here their IPs. That way we can all take a
>> >> closer look and verify your accusations.
>> >
>> > Sure I have one. Here:
>> >
>> > 209.67.209.50
>> >
>> > That is in the hosts that are coming out of vladd. Why? It doesn't
>> > exist.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > George Hester
>> > _________________________________
>>
>> Look in your host file.
>>
>>
>>
>
> That's where it came from db.
>
> --
>
> George Hester
> _________________________________

Ah, indeed, I see your point now (sorry, I probably misread what you wrote).

I think you're right in that it appears to be unavailable at present even
though it's listed in the latest (afaik) host file. I attempted to telnet
into the server ports here though didn't appear to get a valid response. I
guess (bad way of doing things) that it's been taken offline for some reason
(as I note speeder mentioned here), though couldn't say for what reason that
might be. I personally wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's a "fake"
cache server, at least without any substantiating evidence for that
reasoning, though maybe usage of the word "fake" here could be as much to do
with differences in how one defines it.

[Back to original message]