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

[Goswin Brederlow]

"Roland Arendes" <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

Uptime: 194981 seconds (2+06:09)
                Total seens:             202464
                    eDonkey:               7194 (3.55 %)
               old mldonkey:               7809 (3.86 %)
               new mldonkey:             143043 (70.65 %)
                    Overnet:               2838 (1.40 %)
                  old eMule:                  0 (0.00 %)
                  new eMule:              41580 (20.54 %)
                     server:                  0 (0.00 %)
Total filerequests received:            1584639
                    eDonkey:               9171 (0.58 %)
               old mldonkey:             196226 (12.38 %)
               new mldonkey:             462635 (29.19 %)
                    Overnet:             626275 (39.52 %)
                  old eMule:                  0 (0.00 %)
                  new eMule:             290332 (18.32 %)
                     server:                  0 (0.00 %)
            Total downloads:         3985493989
                    eDonkey:         1577385090 (39.58 %)
               old mldonkey:          154119885 (3.87 %)
               new mldonkey:          528473497 (13.26 %)
                    Overnet:          999116163 (25.07 %)
                  old eMule:                  0 (0.00 %)
                  new eMule:          726399354 (18.23 %)
                     server:                  0 (0.00 %)
              Total uploads:          468194304
                    eDonkey:          152217772 (32.51 %)
               old mldonkey:            6326896 (1.35 %)
               new mldonkey:          113971585 (24.34 %)
                    Overnet:             995328 (0.21 %)
                  old eMule:                  0 (0.00 %)
                  new eMule:          194682723 (41.58 %)
                     server:                  0 (0.00 %)
                Total banneds:                394
                    eDonkey:                  0 (0.00 %)
               old mldonkey:                 56 (14.21 %)
               new mldonkey:                244 (61.93 %)
                    Overnet:                  0 (0.00 %)
                  old eMule:                  0 (0.00 %)
                  new eMule:                 94 (23.86 %)
                     server:                  0 (0.00 %)


70% mldonkey clients. The net is MLDONKEY (+ emule fakes).
Thats changed a lot in the last days it seems.

But still: 20% of my clients get 40% of my uploads but only provide
20% downloads. Sharing seems OK but leeching is too high. And I have
the minimum emule slots.

> 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.

How do you differenciate between a sharing client and a leeching
client? The only way at the moment is to see if its emule because
emule has its internal scoring system that hurts everyone else.

Also we are not talking about blocking emule but about distributing
the downloads according to the uploads or according to seen or
something. The emule slots are against emule. THIS IS NOT. Its just a
reaction to reality.

> 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)

They did. Thats exactly what they are doing with their scoring system.
And thats what the "allways give mldonkey a slot" does in a way.

> > 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. :-(

Go, get the source of emule and start coding the protocol for
mldonkey. Don't say someone should put out the fire, put it out
yourself.
 
> 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.

Looks like you didn't understand what is being discussed.

Its about coming up with a fair way to balance up and down. Give way
more back to overnet if they want it for example. Also balancing
between donkey and the other protocols if anyone uses them. It can't
be that we leech 90% of stuff from gnutella and upload 90% to the
donkey network. Same problem.

MfG
        Goswin