Bill Pringlemeir wrote: > > Bill Pringlemeir wrote: > > >> This lets my rather slow machine (with good bandwidth) act as a > >> ultra-node when I am running iptables on my linux box. I don't > >> know if I am "being harmful" to the network, but there seems to be > >> few decisions to stop being an ultra-node. Some particular vendors > >> seem to try and ban me, but most stay connected for hours. > > On 11 Aug 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > What do you mean with the latter? Who exactly is banning you and > > why? > > I just searched my err output and I don't see this message there. > Message range from "05/08/06 11:32:04" to "05/08/11 14:01:04". I only > have three occurances of ban now. > > 05/08/07 10:05:54 (WARNING): Unable to send back HTTP status 550 (Banned for > 10m 0s) to xx.xxx.xx.xxx: Connection reset by peer
You misread this. It means your peer bans the other one but the other reset the connection before your peer could transmit the HTTP response. This banning is usually caused by too frequent HTTP requests. > The previous err output was something like "Warning: host > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (Sharezarea 2.7.111) may be banning us." I don't have > ccurances of this any longer. Perhaps this message was even before I > had fixed up my networks startup to allow NAT to handle the volume of > GTKG connects. I am fairly certain it was always a particular client > (with different IPs). I don't see these "Sharezarea" clients anymore. I think Shareaza is dead in the water with respect to the superior real Gnutella. Their implementation is flawed and outdated. However, they probably found a way to trick Gtk-Gnutella so that it doesn't detect this banning condition anymore. Good riddance. -- Christian
pgpsRCID6glm0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
