Not sure legally how this would work, but what if AnonX put in PeerGaurdian Block list?
Printable View
Not sure legally how this would work, but what if AnonX put in PeerGaurdian Block list?
i dont think it's such a good idea
the blocking should be done on clients, not proxy servers.
beside this would affect proxies' speed performance so i dont think you should put in a blocklist.
Just a late night thought.
The CPU power of these boxes are incredible. I have a box with 600 users on it right now and it is pulling less than 20% CPU. Adding additional rules to the firewall wouldn't change too much until the IP list got into 10,000+
still putting in a blocklist in ur proxy would cause potential connection problems for some users, and then they all bitch about it in ur tech department, which you have to deal with anyway. This could be a pain in the butt.
what you could do is put a link to peerguardian on ur website and tell ppl what it does. Once ppl understand they will download the peerguardian program and use it.
just a thought ;)
That's what we have been doing by email. :( What we really need is a message forum on the AnonX web site that deals with tech issues.
why do you need to use a blocklist anyway?
aren't you super-duper secure and apparently the users are beyond conviction (haha)?
Never hurts to take it to the next level.
Kick the four letter company anyway you can......
i suppose, but why put paying customers performance at risk in exchange for no benefit for them?Quote:
Originally posted by AnonXO@14 December 2003 - 06:05
Never hurts to take it to the next level.
Kick the four letter company anyway you can......
i dont think customers really care if there is a blocklist or not
what they really care about is how fast they can download on bt.... :rolleyes:
:lol:
I asked the question, because my tech staff recieved 4 requests for this "enhancement" today. I wanted to through the question out to the masses and see what you think.
exactly my pointQuote:
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@14 December 2003 - 06:09
what they really care about is how fast they can download on bt.... :rolleyes:
doesn't it worry you slightly that your apparently totally secure proxy service wishes to use a blocklist?
even if only to p!ss off the RIAA
Not to mention, if you put in the block list then people do not have a choice.
Many people do not want PG because they say it blocks unneccessary ip's as well as bad ip's.
And what about the users who do not use this for p2p, they would be blocked potentially from many places they may actually want to go.
Glad you are continually thinking of ways to improve though :D
TD
Good points. You guys are more helpful than my marketing guys.
No block list ever.
--Thanks
:lol:
yeah if you put in the pg blocklist your customer service reps would get flooded with complaints about blocked web sites- we do our best to remove ips when they're reported but we've had a ton of ranges submitted recently
you could use a more refined list where whois results confirm the ip owner- like baytsp for example and then fake file company distributors like overpeer and media defender
but defintely not the full 2800 plus ranges in the pgipdb (peerguardian ip database) where large company ranges have been added etc
ddd
on a completely unrelated note:
anonxo did you guys receive complaints from RIAA/MAPP recently? just out of curiosity. :lol:
I've been sharing a lot of the "hot new" blockbuster releases on the internet.. :-"
well i'm glad that people like you are willing to pay so that other people can get the files off you. I think it is kind and i am grateful. :DQuote:
Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@14 December 2003 - 20:45
on a completely unrelated note:
anonxo did you guys receive complaints from RIAA/MAPP recently? just out of curiosity. :lol:
I've been sharing a lot of the "hot new" blockbuster releases on the internet.. :-"
uh huh :)
and in newsgroups too ;)
I think they are having problems find out where to send the complaints.
sparsely doesn't trust that program cuz teh site looks crap;
*edit* don't look at mine! ^_^
hahahaahahha ROFLMAOQuote:
Originally posted by AnonXO@14 December 2003 - 17:53
I think they are having problems find out where to send the complaints.
that's rich lol
:lol:
ADSL Broadband Internet Connection: $45 Canadians a month on phone bill
Anonx Proxy Service: $5.95 US dollars a month on VISA
Watching the RIAA/MAPP op's face when he/she can't find an email address to send copyright complaint in a whois report: Priceless...
for everything else there is mastercard... :lol: :lol: :lol:
well here's the whois from the network holding the 38.112.xx.xx ip range...
whois whois.arin.net net-38-112-0-0-1:
OrgName: Performance Systems International Inc.
OrgID: PSI
Address: 1015 31st Street, NW
City: Washington
StateProv: DC
PostalCode: 20007
Country: US
NetRange: 38.112.0.0 - 38.119.255.255
CIDR: 38.112.0.0/13
NetName: COGENT-NB-0002
NetHandle: NET-38-112-0-0-1
Parent: NET-38-0-0-0-1
NetType: Reassigned
NameServer: AUTH1.DNS.COGENTCO.COM
NameServer: AUTH2.DNS.COGENTCO.COM
Comment: ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.cogentco.com:4321/
RegDate: 2003-08-20
Updated: 2003-08-20
OrgAbuseHandle: COGEN-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Cogent Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-877-875-4311
OrgAbuseEmail: [email protected]
OrgNOCHandle: ZC108-ARIN
OrgNOCName: Cogent Communications
OrgNOCPhone: +1-877-875-4311
OrgNOCEmail: [email protected]
OrgTechHandle: IPALL-ARIN
OrgTechName: IP Allocation
OrgTechPhone: +1-877-875-4311
OrgTechEmail: [email protected]
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-12-13 19:15
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
so i guess the complaints go to anonx's isp...
not sure about this lol :lol:
That connection is a front.
is this what u mean by front?
22. cover for illegal activities: an apparently respectable person, organization, or business acting as a cover for illegal or secret activities
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
?
:lol:
i wouldn't say "illegal" lol but i'd say you meant by cover...