Haxe wrote: > On Saturday 10 March 2007 17:07, Bill Pringlemeir wrote: > > I had considered augmenting hosts, ultras to include a vendor name > > (if we have discovered the vendor); a blank would be "random".
> This sounds like a good idea. When I set an anti-monopoly requirement to > avoid falling back into one niche, it seems finding a matching UP > produces unnecessarily much overhead the with the current way to do it. Most of the time, we really don't know in advance what software is running at any given address. Some don't support UHC, some don't send a vendor indication and some just report "503 Full" in TCP handshakes without providing a User-Agent header. Usually we just receive bare peer addresses. Also diversity of vendor codes is not necessarily a good thing. This can very well be abused. -- Christian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Gtk-gnutella-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtk-gnutella-devel
