Posted by George Hester on 10/12/05 17:09

"Don M." <newsreader@nospam4fineartsnospam.com> wrote in message
news:zdadnc3HDvcnGNHeRVnygg@giganews.com...
>
> "George Hester" wrote in message
news:ve%2f.41108$K91.11434@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > "Don M." wrote in message news:jMydnVn_auGC19HeRVnyiQ@giganews.com...
> > > "George Hester" wrote in message
news:IwV2f.40720$K91.31835@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > > > "db" <@ .> wrote in message
> news:434b10d3$0$6814$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> > > > > "George Hester" wrote in message
> news:_NA2f.37948$7b6.19207@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > > > > > Getting connected correctly is the problem. These latest host
files and dll
> > > > > > fixes are sending us to fraudulent peer cache servers. When we
get
> > > > > > connected and have no chat channels and cannot whois ourselves
that says the
> > > > > > host whereever that is we connected to is a fraud. And it is
harming the
> > > > > > Network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > George Hester
> > > > >
> > > > > That sounds ridiculous to me, George. For a start there are only
a handful
> > > > > of cache servers operating and all of those are closely monitored
by people
> > > > > who have a relatively high, or high, level of understanding of the
WPNP.
> > > > > Anything obviously untoward should reveal itself quite quickly
particularly
> > > > > given the amount of focus at this moment in time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once your WinMX client has gone "green" (connected) the operations
of your
> > > > > client have absolutely nothing to do with the cache servers at
all; your
> > > > > client simply connects to other peers running primary connections.
If you
> > > > > have problems, like an inability to list chat channels fully, or
inability
> > > > > to whois yourself, then that is purely down to an issue, or
issues, between
> > > > > your client and the remote primary client, or clients, that you're
trying to
> > > > > communicate with. It is highly likely to have nothing whatsoever
to do with
> > > > > cache servers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you using the DLL fix to get online, or a hosts file
modification, or
> > > > > both? The hosts file modification should have zero issue in
respect to your
> > > > > argument so long as you haven't messed it up in some way (like
removing the
> > > > > "127.0.0.1 localhost" line or something), though there's always
the
> > > > > possibility that the DLL could have outstanding issues that may
cause
> > > > > problems similar to what you're seeing. You have the power to run
the tests
> > > > > there to try and determine whether this might be the case, so do
it, and
> > > > > stop being so irresponsible by spreading bollocks around as if
it's the
> > > > > truth.
> > > > >
> > > > Sure no problem. All I want is a behaving client. I'm open to any
and all
> > > > ideas why it wouldn't. Just remember the truth is out there where
to find
> > > > it is the ticket.
> > > >
> > > Having what it takes to get the ticket to where to find the truth
seems to
> > > be the real problem.
> > >
> > Something like hutzpah?
> >
> ==========
>
> No, no. It should have read: "Not having what it takes to get the ticket
to where to find
> the truth seems to be the real problem." I guess the "not" was dropped
when I tried to
> clean the monitor and the keyboard ate it up, not the not but the monitor.
>
>
> Don
>
>

Don I think either one works. Crticism accepted.

--

George Hester
_________________________________

[Back to original message]