i was just wondering if there was any plans to add a safepeer like plugin (peerguardian, safepeer is what azureus uses) to ktorrent. that is the only think keeping me on azureus right now is safepeer.

-Syco54645

We already have IPBlocking plugin since the first RC for v1.2.
I'm also pretty sure that safepeer uses the same blocklist format from www.bluetack.co.yu. Anyway, you're free to try it.

well now how did i miss that? will it automatically update the blacklist and such for you like how safepeer does? of course the ubuntu repose are broken for most kde aps and backports is basically dead, but dapper will be out soon. at least it works better than gentoo. i will try it then if not sooner... i just would have to compile it

thanks again

-Syco54645

You have the configuration dialog for this plugin where you will have to download & convert level1 antip2p file (a simple click and a bit of patience). It doesn't have an automated update but it's not too difficult to update this list every once in a while...

Nope it doesn't auto update. Personally i think if we don't want to get ourselves banned from a downloadlocation that this is the way to go.

Why need repo's when the downloadpage got 1.2 already
http://ktorrent.org/index.php?page=downloads

PS.For repo's i recommend source-o-matic.
PS2@ivan I just spot (with wget) that the downloadlocation of the filter is moved permanently.

PS2@ivan I just spot (with wget) that the downloadlocation of the filter is moved permanently.

I'm not sure I'm following. You mean filter list URL on bluetack? I noticed that they've changed some URL's but KT default one is still pointing on the right file... Maybe I missunderstood.

Yes you're right, they put a redirect on the URL. Perhaps they have a reason why they've done it like this; maybe to be able to use a fixed URL and make the used mirror easy to switch.

But the problem i have with the redirect, is that KTorrent doesn't complete the download of the file: it lost the connection somehow all 4 times i tested. (when i put a direct url in the locater the download did complete)

But the problem i have with the redirect, is that KTorrent doesn't complete the download of the file: it lost the connection somehow all 4 times i tested. (when i put a direct url in the locater the download did complete)

Works OK here. Also, we're using KDE classes for that transfer so it would be exact same thing to copy/paste that link in Konqueror and try to download - it should work.
Anyways, that link will appear in KTorrent only if the user does not enter anything in the box - and they are always free to choose custom links

stoeptegel wrote:Nope it doesn't auto update. Personally i think if we don't want to get ourselves banned from a downloadlocation that this is the way to go.

why would it get banned from a download location for that?

Syco54645 wrote:why would it get banned from a download location for that?

Such widely used download services commonly don't like overusing of their services. It can go well for months, but eventually you may end up of their own blocklist.
It's a relatively huge 5.3 MB file and if everybody wanted to update the file while starting their client it would've been slashdotted easily or at least you have a very low download speed for this file, so avoiding this or at least taking care of it is wise IMO.

Needless to say that you can update the file it by hand in KTorrent very easily already if you like. My vote is against an auto-update for this reasons.
But if there's a feature that checks if the file on the URL is newer than the one you already have, it could make some sort of a solution in this. (i know wget standard checks this)
I am dreaming about a button to check for a newer version with a popup outcome or some sort thing. Just day dreaming though...

stoeptegel wrote:

Syco54645 wrote:why would it get banned from a download location for that?

Such widely used download services commonly don't like overusing of their services. It can go well for months, but eventually you may end up of their own blocklist.
It's a relatively huge 5.3 MB file and if everybody wanted to update the file while starting their client it would've been slashdotted easily or at least you have a very low download speed for this file, so avoiding this or at least taking care of it is wise IMO.

We should educate these people on bittorrent and how it reduces their bandwith usage. A lot of bittorrent apps are using these lists, so it would really be handy to make a torrent.

Needless to say that you can update the file it by hand in KTorrent very easily already if you like. My vote is against an auto-update for this reasons.

An auto updater is fine as long as it doesn't try to do this every 5 minutes.

But if there's a feature that checks if the file on the URL is newer than the one you already have, it could make some sort of a solution in this. (i know wget standard checks this)
I am dreaming about a button to check for a newer version with a popup outcome or some sort thing. Just day dreaming though...

As long as they provide checksums, this can be done pretty easily.

George wrote:We should educate these people on bittorrent and how it reduces their bandwith usage. A lot of bittorrent apps are using these lists, so it would really be handy to make a torrent.

I agree, this might be a good thing to go into the documentation. (do you already have something in pre-state or someone working on this?)

It would awsome if it could be integrated into DHT in some way, though i don't know the technical aspect on this to be able to say that it should work.

An auto updater is fine as long as it doesn't try to do this every 5 minutes.

Yes but it also depends on how many different clients are doing it. This is a functionality vs bandwidth dilemma.

As long as they provide checksums, this can be done pretty easily.

I *assumed* wget checked the data of the file, because i didn't saw any md5sum file in the directory when wget gave me a "file is not newer than yours" error.
But when we request md5sums in their service, this can work good you say. Hmm, should i request this?

stoeptegel wrote:

George wrote:We should educate these people on bittorrent and how it reduces their bandwith usage. A lot of bittorrent apps are using these lists, so it would really be handy to make a torrent.

I agree, this might be a good thing to go into the documentation. (do you already have something in pre-state or someone working on this?)

We can only implement this when we offer a torrent.

It would awsome if it could be integrated into DHT in some way, though i don't know the technical aspect on this to be able to say that it should work.

The list is far to big for DHT.

An auto updater is fine as long as it doesn't try to do this every 5 minutes.

Yes but it also depends on how many different clients are doing it. This is a functionality vs bandwidth dilemma.

True

As long as they provide checksums, this can be done pretty easily.

I *assumed* wget checked the data of the file, because i didn't saw any md5sum file in the directory when wget gave me a "file is not newer than yours" error.
But when we request md5sums in their service, this can work good you say. Hmm, should i request this?

To check it, wget would have to download it, how else it is going to compute a checksum from data on a server somewhere on the internet ?

George wrote:To check it, wget would have to download it, how else it is going to compute a checksum from data on a server somewhere on the internet ?

Dunno, but i was trying to find out and look into possibilities with knowing exactly how it works. (which is never very smart to begin with )

are there any plans for ktorrent to track the ips that it blocks (much like safepeer does)? i am just wondering as i find it interesting to see what all was blocked so far.

if anyone wants to know what i mean by how safepeer does, let me know and ill get a screenshot.

-Syco54645