Haxe wrote:
> > As LimeWire did not support
> > any IP address block lists until a few weeks ago a lot of traffic was
> > wasted for spam.
> Does this mean that this will get a bit better in the future?
For a moment certainly but in the long run spammers might improve and
hide their addresses so
First, thanks for the thorough answer :-)
On Sunday 04 March 2007 18:29, Christian Biere wrote:
> I my opinion, spam et al. is responsible for most of the problems.
Oh, good point. I didn't even think of that.
> As LimeWire did not support
> any IP address block lists until a few weeks ago a lot
On Sunday 04 March 2007 12:59, Andrew Benton wrote:
> What I do is open ~/.gtk-gnutella/ultras in a text editor, search for
> lines which end with :6346 (or 6348 - they're usually Bearshare) and
> then copy those addresses into the Add box on the GnutellaNet pane of
> Gtk-Gnutella. It takes a while
Haxe wrote:
> Over the recent months (possibly even a year or so), I have seen my
> upload volume declining from what was once a high load to a mere
> dribble. I consider this a real problem, because I really like to share
> my files to the net, to give back value to the gnutella network. If
>
Haxe wrote:
> Even if BearShare ultrapeers are no longer
> listed in the bootstrapping databases, shouldn't they appear in my
> cache after some network use?
My guess is that Limewire ultras don't connect to Bearshare so when you
ping them, they tell you the ultras they're connected to, so you d
