Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Open letter to Vinnie - Wake up call (flames)

Expand Messages
  • Vinnie <info@freepeers.com>
    ... [flames=on] TAKE YOUR VACATION AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS! I AM SO SICK OF THIS FUCKING EXCUSE! IF SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS ON VACATION DOES THAT MEAN THE
    Message 1 of 102 , Feb 14, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In the_gdf@yahoogroups.com, Steve Lamb <grey@d...> wrote:
      > Mike has been on vacation
      [flames=on]
      TAKE YOUR VACATION AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS! I AM SO SICK OF THIS
      FUCKING EXCUSE! IF SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS ON VACATION DOES THAT MEAN THE
      INSPECTORS DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO GO IN? I MEAN FOR GODS SAKE THIS IS
      THE BIGGEST BULLSHIT I HAVE EVER HEARD! VACATION MY ASS GO TO HELL!
      [flames=off]
    • Kenneth Corbin
      ... Why? Just counting queries and throttling back on clients who send too many is probably an overly simplistic solution, but it would do the job. Keeping
      Message 102 of 102 , Mar 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Friday 28 March 2003 08:14 pm, Vinnie wrote:
        > --- In the_gdf@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Corbin <kencx@p...> wrote:
        > > Above and beyond what can be done with a publicly
        > > distributed blacklist, we have to work out protocols that identify
        >
        > clients
        >
        > > that are issueing excessive queries and stop responding to their
        >
        > queries.
        >
        > Above and beyond publicly distributed blacklists, we have to work out
        > protocols for identifying excessive queries at HOPS>0.
        > (Unfortunately, this is impossible given Gnutella architecture).

        Why? Just counting queries and throttling back on clients who send too many
        is probably an overly simplistic solution, but it would do the job. Keeping
        tables of queries received and throttling down someone who keeps sending the
        same queries over and over again would be better, as this identifies them as
        either a client that is issueing excessive queries itself, or failing to
        throttle queries from one of it's clients. Either way we want to discourage
        its use, and failing to respond to its queries is the most effective way we
        can accomplish that.

        > > Identifying excessive query
        > > clients is a non-trivial problem, but one that several people are
        > working out
        > > solutions for.
        >
        > Identifying excessive query clients is a trivial problem, for a
        > single vendor environment.

        Yep.

        > > I happen to like open
        > > source solutions because I can be involved in both design and
        > implementation.
        >
        > I happen to like proprietary solutions because they are not as
        > vulnerable to attack, and give the user a better experience.

        That does seem to be the case to date, but we keep trying.

        > > With a closed source solution you are pretty much on your own, with
        > a much
        > > smaller development pool and higher development costs, which have
        > to be
        > > recouped somehow.
        >
        > With an open source solution, you are pretty much restricted to the
        > least common denominator of performance, with a much larger base of
        > resource-hungry nodes and higher per-node resource consumption costs,
        > which have to be recouped somehow (hopefully, without resorting to
        > overquerying).

        Not necessarily, there is no reason why the gntella protocol couldn't be
        scrapped in favor of something else if someone wants to make the case for
        something bigger in and better. Whichever way we go, and open protocol has
        the advantage of having a lot of very smart people trying to pick holes in in
        in order to make it beter. Network protocols in general, as opposed to
        specific file sharing protocols, have been an area where open standard
        protocols have consistently outperformed propriatory (ie Microsoft)
        standards.

        > You still haven't addressed the primary problem with an open network
        > solution. Any fully open network is going to get compromised by
        > hostiles.

        Demonstrated absurd. Consider the Internet itself, which is a completely
        open protocol, operating in an incredibly hostile environment marked by a
        continuous arms race between hostile attackers and security defenders, which
        netherless manages to continue functioning.

        > > Unless you can move somewhere beyond
        > > the reach of American law you will get shut down.
        >
        > Unless you can remain within reach of American law, but remain
        > untracable in your distribution of executables and private server
        > locations, you will get shut down.

        Distributing executables can be done in ways that are impossible to trace.
        Where they will get you is where you collect funds. Whether you get money
        from users or advertisers, someone has to have a fixed point of contact that
        can be traced. It is possible to make this very difficult, with offshore
        fronts, Swiss bank accounts, and the like. Kazara was doing an excellent
        job of keeping their financial trail under cover until they made the decision
        to stand and fight. But it takes some really sharp people and you will end
        up spending a lot of time and energy playing accounting games that won't be
        available for software development.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.