Apparently, the servents on connect*.gnutellanet.com are all bearshare servents. Do these have any restrictions on what client can be used? I know *.bearshare.com servents don't like 3rd party clients...

Neither *.bearshare.net nor *.gnutellanet.com discriminate against third party clients. They'll drop connections from people running Gnutella 0.4 clients, including old versions of Bearshare... in which case, you just upgrade, and you're set.

Or be a good little hacker and hex edit the 0.4 text and change it to 0.6 on a old client.

That wouldn't work, handshake is more different.

Also it is known that bearshare.net host caches do only accept Bearshare clients, Limewire does similiar with it's own hostcaches AFAIK. See the FAQ

Your FAQ is inaccurate moak.. Have you even tried to connect to all the bearshare host caches with a newer servent that has .6 handshaking? I did with a few non-bearshare servents shareaza and gnucleus and they worked..

Judging from the AFAIK and "Also it is known" you havent..

Moak you must do your own dirty work and if your going to make FAQs and help people you must be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the information is 100% CORRECT else you are hurting more people than you are helping. Relaying on opinions, second guessing and heresay for information is not in the best interest of people and IMHO does more harm than good. Dont get in involved if your not willing to do what it takes.

You are all invited to update the FAQ and write more Gnutella programming articles! If Freepeers strange behaviour of clustering and disadvantaging has changed, give clear & friendly information so any moderator could update the FAQ. Please do not insult.

Even better you could donate it to a project like rfc-gnutella if they want to use it or release it by adding a post to the end of it allowing others to edit, modify, distribute it, gpl like.

I wasnt trying to be insulting and im sorry if you feel that way. But not knowing where the data is and not having accurate data was a big problem for gnutella which you among all people should understand.

Why don't you just try it for yourself?

Nobody ever said anything about clustering. That's something totally different, and it only really affects Bearshare clients. The only host-cache that doesn' allow third party clients is router.limewire.com.

----------------

I only wish I had a dime for every time someone bashed Freepeers based on hearsay, opinions, and just plain Bearshare bashing.

If you don't like it make it better and provide improvements.

Since it only returns a pong with some IPs, are you sure it won't work?
And those connect1.xxx links are bearshare nodes, so yes they do let non bearshare clients get IPs.
Anyone developing a client should be using what gnucleus uses since it's not a central point anymore.
Moak, the clustering attempt by vinnie to get more market share was a great waste of vinnies time, it backfired on him when morpheus took all his market share.
He can now cluster all the way to zero users.
Looks like Shareaza is going to further kick bearshares market in the butt.
So the water is fine here now Moak, jump back on in!
Hope Shareaza goes open source.

Sorry definitely not anymore in this forum. Hope someone else can help you.

Does this mean you're leaving us again? Or are you just looking for yet another farewell party?

__________________
-- cut here --

that's the gnutella family life, harmony & joy.

It's incorrect that the *.gnutellanet.com host caches and that all of the *.bearshare.net host caches drop 0.4 handshakes. I did several 0.4 handshakes with a gnutellanet and a bearshare.net host cache a few minutes ago and got replies from both. I wrote the code myself and was watching it with tcpdump as well as within the code so I'm 100% certain of this. I'm not sure that they all handshake only 0.6 all of the time, and that they always will, but I do know that both gnutellanet.com and bearshare.net still respond to 0.4 handshaking on some basis.

Their host cache is Java based, and has some problems handling more than 100 to 200 connections per second, this is why they closed it off.

I believe they are close to releasing a new client which doesn't rely on host caches at all, although I am very wary of this feature because it opens the network to more attacks.