Re: [Mldonkey-users] eMule Mod to emulate mldonkey

[Roland Arendes]

Hi

>> We need something that does not favor one particular client, or we will
>> always see such mods...
>> How about making the distribution dynamic, dependend on " seen" or
>> "downloaded" in the statistic. If the download comes mainly from one
>> client Type, even it is emule( i doubt that...), this type of client
>> should get the most upload.
> Indeed, since it's easy to fake a mldonkey client.. we really should have
> more complex mldonkey authentification scheme, emules uses protocol
> extensions not so easy to reverse engeneer, we should have harder ones so
> they wont fake us so easyly.

Sorry, but this is DEFINITELY the wrong way. I already awaited this step
from some emule-mod coder. And, I don't know whats the problem of some
people here giving upload mostly to emule. THE WHOLE NET IS NEARLY
COMPLETE EMULE!

And, furthermore, they ARE NOT leeching.

Uptime: 227888 seconds (2+15:18)

            Total downloads:         3619618990
                    eDonkey:          959500708 (26.51 %)
               old mldonkey:           67756225 (1.87 %)
               new mldonkey:          937002425 (25.89 %)
                    Overnet:                  0 (0.00 %)
                  old eMule:                  0 (0.00 %)
                  new eMule:         1655359632 (45.73 %)
                     server:                  0 (0.00 %)

              Total uploads:          708489216
                    eDonkey:          128686231 (18.16 %)
               old mldonkey:           14607360 (2.06 %)
               new mldonkey:          220058231 (31.06 %)
                    Overnet:                  0 (0.00 %)
                  old eMule:                  0 (0.00 %)
                  new eMule:          345137394 (48.71 %)
                     server:                  0 (0.00 %)


I'm using MLDonkey 2.01+pango20021213b without this stupid
emule-slot-limiting at all. Well, aggressive client banning is okay,
because it is not specific to one client and will only hit unsocial
modified ones.

Remember the way lugdunum walked some time ago? In the first step, he
blocked mldonkey specially. Then, he blocked *aggressive* clients, not
mldonkey especially. And now, we're making the same damn mistake: We
exclude a specific client, because some people here don't understand the
net, can't read the stats or are no friends of emule. Sorry, but this is
BULLSHIT in my eyes.

I remember the first days of eMule (when the site on sourceforge was
found), and mldonkey announced, that they will cooperate. I think someone
of them did something stupid. Now I see a war. Great. And, the people
here, instead of reconciling, are making even bigger bombs.

>> That's not good Style.
>> The only  ones who should  always have  a slot are my Friends!
> I like the idea of favorising mldonkeys since they are good sharers, but
> since emules fake mldonkeys now, it should be removed ASAP.

No, I don't like the idea of favorising one specific client. Imagine what
happened if eMule would have introduced this feature before us. What would
be our reaction, if emule prefers other emules? (It does NOT)

> Emules add opcodes extensions to talk to themselves, they also have some
> specific values in their client md4 (do they still use the client md4
> identification?)
> Mldonkey 2.0 identifies itself by having some specific values in the
> client md4 (has this improved??)

The md4-ident is only the first step to recognize an emule. The next one
is the Emule-Protocol-Tag, and the protocol itself (compressed and so on).

We cannot fake an emule, but we can use their features to be one. I
thought in the first place, mldonkey and emule would cooperate and the
world would be fine. Nope. :-(

If this way of thinking from some people on this list doesn't change, it's
likely that some of the people on this list will switch to
linmule-development. I can't see this stupid bitching about emule anymore.

I really HOPE some people will understand THIS TIME.

Roland