Innocent until Client Analyzer proves them leecher

[Bebabob]

As long as they don't enter your upload slots prior than any "better" client with more score, everything is fine with the CA.

They do.

The screenshots show the top known clients sorted by data they have received from top to bottom. In order to receive data they enter my upload slots. And they are queued. And almost all of them are leechers. (Actually, in the second screenshot all queued are leeches)

Hence the need for heavier punishment.

[omeringen]

CA is just a different credit system and doesn't mean/include a real antileech protection AFAIK. That's because CA philosophy is really different but i don't like uploading to a client which uses a bad mod even if this client is a real good uploader. bTw, I always wanted to try a mod with CA+dLp. . .

[Tuxman]

i don't like uploading to a client which uses a bad mod even if this client is a real good uploader

So you don't want to upload to uploaders? So you want to behave like a leecher yourself?

[omeringen]

Why ? Because they are using bad mods(violation of the GPL, some kind of bad features etc.), we should punish them. . . I mostly(can't detect all of them) want to upload clean clients.

Tell me, why some of you include AJ (or some other mods) detection on your mods ?

[Tuxman]

You should not want to punish someone who didn't do you any harm! What for?

[omeringen]

Let's imagine that we are not downloading anything at all. Just sharing/uploading always. Why should i send data to any kind of bullshit community mod or any other kind of leecher clients ?


Could you answer my previous question please ?

Why ? Because they are using bad mods(violation of the GPL, some kind of bad features etc.), we should punish them. . . I mostly(can't detect all of them) want to upload clean clients.

Tell me, why some of you include AJ (or some other mods) detection on your mods ?

[Tuxman]

Let's imagine that we are not downloading anything at all. Just sharing/uploading always.

What is your problem with being leeched then if this is exactly what you want?

Tell me, why some of you include AJ (or some other mods) detection on your mods ?

Do I? I actually doubt that there is a working AJ detection. The only mods my mods recognize as "bad" are common GPL breakers. These are not banned for leeching BTW.

[omeringen]

[url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=86815]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]

Let's imagine that we are not downloading anything at all. Just sharing/uploading always.

What is your problem with being leeched then if this is exactly what you want?
. . .

Is there any reason to send data to bad(community mods or any other kind of leechers) clients ? What will they do with the data they leeched from us ? Sharing with thier kind of clients, or not sharing with anybody. . .

Isn't it better to upload data to clean clients ? They will probably share them with all the clients. That's better for network. . .
Be honest please.

. . .

[url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=86815]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]

Tell me, why some of you include AJ (or some other mods) detection on your mods ?

Do I? I actually doubt that there is a working AJ detection. The only mods my mods recognize as "bad" are common GPL breakers. These are not banned for leeching BTW.

Why do you recognize common GPL breakers as "bad" ? And what do you mean by "common" ? Most of the leecher clients are GPL breakers. And any reason to detect them if you don't ban(usual ban or reducing score) them for leeching ?

I don't know your mods. But i see there is lots of CA mods with AJ detection. Why do they doin' this ?

bTw, i was reading interview with Spike2 ;

Additionally the Spike2-Mod is the only mod incorporating both philosophies of AntiLeech-matters: You can choose between the ClientAnalyzer and DLP-alike mechanism. In the next version you will be able to use both of them together !

I said that I always wanted to try a mod with CA+dLp. I am looking forward to this.

Note that; i am not claiming that CA is bad. Actually i like how it works, but i just don't like the leecher/punishment philosophy of you.

[Tuxman]

Is there any reason to send data to bad(community mods or any other kind of leechers) clients ? What will they do with the data they leeched from us ?

What if they only want to download and consume that particular file? I can't see anything wrong with that as long as you don't want to have anything from them anyway. When you are on the uploader side, why do you care about those downloading?

Isn't it better to upload data to clean clients ? They will probably share them with all the clients.

They can as well unshare the files. But how should the CA find out properly if a client is a leecher if you don't give it a chance to give you something back?

Why do you recognize common GPL breakers as "bad" ?

Because no-one can tell what they actually do.

And what do you mean by "common" ?

Those which are quite often seen.

Most of the leecher clients are GPL breakers. And any reason to detect them if you don't ban(usual ban or reducing score) them for leeching ?

Of course they are score-reduced when they leech. This is how CA works.

I don't know your mods. But i see there is lots of CA mods with AJ detection. Why do they doin' this ?

Upcoming beba and AnalyZZUL versions will check the mod string for "Applejuice" and its descendants, but this is (as you might know) no actually secure way to identify them. They do this for two reasons: First, they are GPL breakers (see above); second, they can't be configured to stop leeching. In fact, most "leecher" mods (like ZZULtimativ etc.) can be configured to work properly, so that's why a mod string detection basically fails.

From WiZaRd's original code comments:

Code: Alles auswählen

these clients CAN IMPOSSIBLY be used as "good" mods - thus they do not deserve a single byte - very sad...

I said that I always wanted to try a mod with CA+dLp. I am looking forward to this.

The DLP system is made for punishing "suspect" mods. And it does, even if they are actually releasers. Not always a good idea (you might lose a lot of sources), is it?

[omeringen]

[url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=86817]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]

Is there any reason to send data to bad(community mods or any other kind of leechers) clients ? What will they do with the data they leeched from us ?

What if they only want to download and consume that particular file? I can't see anything wrong with that as long as you don't want to have anything from them anyway. When you are on the uploader side, why do you care about those downloading?

Isn't it better to upload data to clean clients ? They will probably share them with all the clients.

They can as well unshare the files. But how should the CA find out properly if a client is a leecher if you don't give it a chance to give you something back?

Why do i care ? The reason is already on my previous message, you're not quoted it fully. They both(bad and clean clients) can unshare files just after they complete the file. But bad clients will probably share these files with thier kind of clients, or not sharing with anybody. . . Clean clients will probably share the files with all the clients. That's better for network. . .

You are only releasing, not downloading anything at all. Actually there isn't any reason to upload data to bad clients. And yes, CA has a disadvange about this point.

[url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=86817]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]

Why do you recognize common GPL breakers as "bad" ?

Because no-one can tell what they actually do.

And what do you mean by "common" ?

Those which are quite often seen.

Most of the leecher clients are GPL breakers. And any reason to detect them if you don't ban(usual ban or reducing score) them for leeching ?

Of course they are score-reduced when they leech. This is how CA works.

Why do you need to reduce score ? You're only detecting some of the bad clients and reducing score but you're not instereted with other kind of leechers. Interesting. . .
You said that ;

• You should not want to punish someone who didn't do you any harm! What for?

  
  

That's your philosophy, not mine. . .

[url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=86817]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]

I don't know your mods. But i see there is lots of CA mods with AJ detection. Why do they doin' this ?

Upcoming beba and AnalyZZUL versions will check the mod string for "Applejuice" and its descendants, but this is (as you might know) no actually secure way to identify them. They do this for two reasons: First, they are GPL breakers (see above); second, they can't be configured to stop leeching. In fact, most "leecher" mods (like ZZULtimativ etc.) can be configured to work properly, so that's why a mod string detection basically fails.

From WiZaRd's original code comments:

Code: Alles auswählen

these clients CAN IMPOSSIBLY be used as "good" mods - thus they do not deserve a single byte - very sad...

Again, you're picking only some of clients because they are not deseving any single byte. That's quite funny because they haven't done any harm to you yet. Punishing these clients is what dLp does and you don't like this as far as i understand.

[url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=86817]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]

I said that I always wanted to try a mod with CA+dLp. I am looking forward to this.

The DLP system is made for punishing "suspect" mods. And it does, even if they are actually releasers. Not always a good idea (you might lose a lot of sources), is it?

Check StulleMule, it's has both options of "ban" and "reduce score". I don't like banning as well. Reducing score is better of course.