Hello, this version has been banned at Bitme for not identifying itself properly. The admin was even unsure if he banned the real client, but I just tried it and it in fact was. I'll post our PM conversations without his name because I think it may be valuable.

1st message

Message
I can't speak for BitMeTV, but I just observed a client being used on BitMe which identified itself as "ktorrent/2.1rc1". According to our client identification software, this client was not adhering to the specifications for proper client identification, so I banned it from BitMe. I have no way of knowing whether or not it was the "real" ktorrent/2.1rc1, or if it was a hacked, spoofed, or improperly compiled client. If it was the real client, it is not identifying itself properly and needs to be fixed (and it will remain banned until it is fixed.)

If you are able to use the real ktorrent/2.1rc1 on BitMe, let me know, so that I can see what its proper identification looks like.

Thanks,

Name Edited out


2nd message(shows my reply to 1st)

Please feel free to communicate with the developer, if there is a problem with the identification. If you tell them that it is not identifying properly, they should know what the problem is and get it fixed. ktorrent 2.0.3 is identifying correctly, and subsequent releases should do the same.

Name Edited Out

-------- Thehound wrote: --------
Figured you'd see this faster on Bitme. Not sure if they identify RC different than final versions, but I can check once my upload finishes(aka I get a seeding base). I'm still using 2.0.3 at this moment and I think the ID string is KT2003, I haven't seen the 2.1 rc1 string yet but will let you know. If you banned the RC and the final identifies ok, then the fact you did this should be moot as it will have a different but proper ID. Will start a Bitme torrent when I upgrade. I shut almost everything down for this moment to upload as fast as I can on my new torrent. Will let you know if it works and get the ID string if I have some time. Cheers!

PS-If I do find it banned, is it ok for me to communicate with the developer about this?

We haven't changed identification method since v2.0, I'm not sure what's the problem.

George? Any ideas what could possibly be wrong?

2.1 should either identify itself as KT 21B1, 21R1 21DV for beta1, RC1, and development (i.e. svn) respectively?

I don't think anything of ours identifies as "ktorrent/2.1rc1".

I think he means the User-Agent string in the HTTP request header. The string ktorrent/2.1rc1 is correct, what is wrong with it ?

That does sound proper to me. I have PMed the person in question and I'm hoping he'll come here and help you, whether he uses his actual name or not. Or, at least give me an answer to all of this that will make sense to all of us. I tried 2.1 RC1 on a tracker that wasn't blocking it and I think it shows some valuable improvement in performance from the 2.0 to the 2.1 release. Keep up the good work. I hope you guys can get this sorted between eachother.

First of all, are we talking about BitMe.org or BitmeTV.org ?

Now, as George said User-Agent string ktorrent/2.1rc1 is correct, so there's probably something else that caused them to ban it. Question is what?

Also, if somebody spoofed his client to identify with our User-Agent string than this is all wrong. I remember us sending PeerID and User-Agent strings to BitmeTV and we are still using the same format except the version numbers are increased.

I haven't visited BitmeTV recently. The last time I have, they allowed using KTorrent >=2.0 but they didn't update the FAQ. I was going to contact them again once stable v2.1 is released anyway.

We're talking about Bitme.org. Bitmetv hasn't banned it thus far, as far as I know. The admin as you see there told me to try 2.1 RC1 on the tracker because he wasn't sure if what he caught was a spoof. I tried it with my own real client and got rejected by the tracker, so it seems he has banned the real string. Seems he's not online yet but in the PM, I did link him to this thread. I have a feeling it may have been a spoof that had most of the string right except a minor thing after hearing what you guys had to say here. Hopefully, if it was a spoof, he bans the user and unbans the client.