Todd Pederzani writes:
> Fredrik Tolf wrote:
> > >Ah, I see your point. Very good point, in fact. I guess there are
> >two ways of solving that. Either make the hub connect to each user
> >to try him (bad idea, I admit)
> >
> eDonkey servers do this - they connect to a user's listening port
> and if it's unreachable, it puts them in their equivalent of
> passive mode (lowID).  eDonkey servers also host a lot more users
> than the biggest DC hubs as of yet do (the biggest I saw listed was
> 205,628 users - though the median size seems closer to 20-30k).

Really? I would have thought that it would take to much hub resources
to do that. Do you really think that it's feasible?

> >If a user detects anything weird about another user (not being
> >able to connect to him,
> >
>  From my experience on the DC++ forums, if you implement a "warning
> system" that can be triggered on timeouts by the user, you will get
> a lot of misconfigured users using it.  (Many behind routers don't
> realize they have to put in their external IP to become active.)

If I'm not incorrect, none of the things it will detect are very prone
to misconfiguration. Connecting to a user won't be affected by many
(or any?) factors that I can think of. Likewise, fakeshared files
don't have any apparent misconfiguration factors that I can think of
either.

In any case, though, to avoid that users would increase a hubs load by
misusing it, I was thinking that, if the hub investigates a warning
and detects it to be bogus, it could ignore further warnings from that
same client for five minutes or so.

Fredrik