Bearshare servents
 

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?

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.

AFAIK they released it, the new beta 2.5 is out but I didn´t test it yet...

And why it opens the network to more attacks, you should explain your statements!

Morgwen

Not at all, it works rather well. BearShare clients who enter the BearShare-rich portion of the network benefit from more files with hashes and Keep-Alive support.

Morpheus only added users to the Gnutella network, it did not take any away. Fortuntately, BearShare's clumping feature isolated our users from the many bugs in the Morpheus implementation of Gnucleus.

Rather doubtful. If anything, Shareaza will cause client developers to build in defenses against this client, since it allows users to have practically no limits on the number of Ultrapeers, download retries, etc...

Not forward thinking, and rather unfriendly to the network if you ask me.

Qtrax anyone?

Yes you are right its easier to block the clients instead of talking to them... :rolleyes:

Morgwen

I believe their scheme hinges on sending GGEP-ed pongs with uptime information. The idea is that higher uptime addresses will be preferred over shorter uptime, to speed the connection process.

The problem with this scheme, is that a hostile entity can flood the network with bogus GGEP-ed pongs that claim very high uptimes. If the pongs have random IP addresses, it will greatly increase the bootstrap procedure and users will leave the network (or choose a different client).

On the other hand, our "anchor heartbeat" message is digitally signed, cannot be faked, and contains the addresses of known connectible Ultrapeers whose identities are secured. Fortunately, we are making the format of this message available to everyone so that even the open source servents can benefit.

This message, and others, are detailed by me in the GDF:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/message/8222

You're welcome in advance, you can thank me for pushing Gnutella forward later (maybe around BearShare 5.0.0 or 6.0.0).

Have you talked to them? I don't see them in the GDF.

Comments like that, Morgwen, expose your bias against BearShare and your penchant for criticism over substance.

So you are ONLY able to talk with developers that are members in the GDF? Vinnie perhaps you heared something about eMails? Try to sent them one and see what happens... the develpoer is also registered here...

Is you don´t know how to use a mail account ask Adam Fisk he was able to get in touch with Xolox and they are still no members in the GDF!

YOUR comment shows me only that you are biased against all non- bearshare clients...

Morgwen

Vinnie,

IF you want to get in touch with then here are the mails:

http://www.shareaza.com/support.aspx

Talk to them or stop complaining...

Morgwen

I don't think so. your comments do. befor badmouthing in public you should send a small mail to the developers. if you can't follow simple communication rules, it's hard to take your repeated rude behaviour serious.

Yes
 

I sent them an email, and cc'ed Greg Bildson. Here is the text:
---

Dear Shareaza Developers:

Just wanted to point out that there is a Gnutella Developers Forum available here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf

Also, I noticed that Shareaza allows for no limits on Ultrapeers. While allowing for massive searches, this type of behavior is not very beneficial for the network in general. LimeWire recommends a limit of 10 Ultrapeers and I would tend to agree. Even 10 is somewhat large, the query traffic is amplified by Ultrapeers since they create a high density network.

Sincerely,

Vincent Falco
Free Peers, Inc.

Hi, Vinnie...... Look, it's far better for Gnutella Network as a whole for you and Mike to be able to speak 'privately' as well... Not putting on airs here, but I think I can help with that.....
Interested?
It sure won't hurt anyone, hmmm?

Might even help if that unknown creep who said that Shareaza was receiving it's funding from the riaa was to say sorry! :p

Seriously Mr.V, what about a private little summit?
Couldn't care less what the others think about this suggestion to you...... It's intended for the long-term good of all of us. Right?

It is far better, I agree :)