Re: [Mldonkey-users] servers refusing mldonkey clients?

[Brett Dikeman]

At 11:15 AM +0100 12/10/02, MLdonkey wrote:
>  >  Anyone?
>
> I don't know if a lot of people know that, but a lot of servers are
> using very strict rules about the behavior of clients that can connect
> to them. In particular, such behavior are kicked:
>
> - Low ID (you are behind a firewall)
> - More than 20 downloads (reason why new mldonkey only sends 20
>  requests, and then 1/minute)
> - More than 1000 files shared

None of these apply to me, but thanks for mentioning them.

I've noticed / heard of other restrictions, and I spent some time 
poking around the lugdnum(sp?) site.  A lot of the stuff they're 
working on looks pretty nice, and it seems that in at least a few 
cases their 'encouragement'(to say the least; more like 
strong-arming) for client programmers to make network-friendly 
changes has had some good effects.

  At the same time, it seems like they're overengineering a lot of 
stuff while ignoring the basics, like asking people to run servers 
off static IPs ONLY(I've seen servers appear in up to 10 different 
IPs over the course of a day or two.  Lot of them have german names 
and are in a german-ISP's netblock), and cleaning up server lists 
before handing them to clients(I love the 1.1.x.x and non-routeable 
IP ranges, those are cute.)

I also have never seen the logic in massive servers.  We have many 
servers these days.  Some have only a dozen or so users.  Yet the 
lugdnum people spend time and effort on all sorts of Rube Goldberg 
tricks to make it easier to host more users on a single server. 
They're impressive, and would let you run a smallish server with even 
less resources...but it seems like that's not the effect- the effect 
is more that 2-3 main servers keep getting bigger and bigger.


If something like half the entire edonkey network is on one server, 
what happens when that server kicks the bucket, or gets unplugged(as 
happened to AnimeReactor and few other servers a couple months 
back...Unplugged by law enforcement.)

Further, not to imply this is happening, but such concentration means 
an abuse of opportunity would have a serious affect on the network. 
Maybe a server admin decides to limit the sources handed out to other 
clients, but gosh gee, he and his friends with a special tag in their 
username get all the sources.  Or maybe that one server's network 
traffic starts getting sniffed by law enforcement.

Or, maybe the server software author decides he's going to invent all 
sorts of silly systems and force it upon everyone - because, after 
all, if you write client software, who wants a client that can't see 
half or 3/4 of the systems on the network?

Well, I'll go grab the CVS version, look through the changelog, and 
see if I want to try it...

Brett
--
----
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~brett/
http://www.apple.com/switch/