leecher BT client exists as well as leechermule, will uT anti-it ?

[LeiMing]

A period of time age, there was a argument about a HTTP/FTP/BT/ED2k client called XunLei (Thunder) on KTXP forum (a Chinese forum).

this argument is centered on whether using it's BT feature. a lot of people said that its BT feature is a leecher as well, but others said not. recently, new beta of BitComet is said to be able to have anti-leecher feature, and Xunlei can not connect to it. According to this, I think Xunlei's BT feature does be a leecher. (to tell the truth, I want to say Xunlei's all download features are all leecher)

At first, Xunlei is "famous" for it's abusing http and ftp links as mirrors and many servers (in fact it's "many site administrators") suffered it. then, I don't know it's when, it has the feature to act as ED2K client and BT client.

its ed2k feature proved to be a leecher.

Above all, should utorrent have anti-leecher as well?

I hope it has, but I don't know how others think.

Regards,

LeiMing

[Switeck]

Another thread on Xunlei:

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=41785

[jewelisheaven]

To answer the second part of your request.. no uT will not ban peers based upon any specific peerid or any characteristic which can be spoofed.

uT only bans peers which send bad data.

[LeiMing]

I have heard that BT protocal itself has the ability about anti-leecher. but before I become a seed I found many clients gives me nearly no bandwidth but my client gives him much higher speed (tens times).

Is there any documents about BT's sharing rules? thanks.

[Switeck]

A peer that's not uploading quickly is less likely to be overloaded than a peer which either has upload speed set to unlimited or at least faster than they can sustain.

So the "leecher" peer may as a result get faster download speeds from other peers.

However if you give uTorrent an upload speed max that it can sustain without problems, then you're a little better off than a "leecher" who's set their upload speed as low as possible. This is even true if the "leecher" is using a BitTorrent client which lacks anything special as far as "anti-leeching" is cocnerned.

There may be various tricks to "encourage" peers to upload to you that leech-only BT clients might use, but most of the supposed leeching clients are actually TRYING to upload...but their max upload speed has been set rather low.

[hermanm]

Also, it seems they like ready to connect with other peers more readily. Any time I ban BitComet and BitLord peers, others join the peer list more often than other clients. Its rather annoying. Now I'm thinking of running some sort of firewall that analyzes packets on my Bittorrent port and drop BitComet and BitLord connections automatically.

[Switeck]

I positively despise older BitComet's tendencies to attempt multiple connections to you at once. I even saw it in the last week from a v0.0.9.4 BitComet -- so it's not completely gone. BitLord/BitSpirit clients are just BitComet clones using the same core programming. The older versions can be real hammering clients.

But automatically dropping connections just because they're using BitComet/BitLord/BitSpirit is misplaced. Firstly, they are still numerous and that makes them necessary if you want to complete a rare torrent which has only one seed, a BitComet client. Secondly, the latest BitComet client at least as far as other BitTorrent clients are concerned, isn't nearly as hostile as it used to be. (It is hostile to its own users due to phone-home tracking features.)

A bigger danger than BitComet's too-high auto-reconnect rate is its full support of sequential downloading. This can and does destroy torrent swarms, even without being the predominate client on such swarms. But fortunately not every BitComet user stupidly turns that on.

A rather simple solution to avoid the bad, older BitComet clients is turn on forced outgoing encryption and disable legacy connections.

[hermanm]

> A rather simple solution to avoid the bad, older BitComet clients is

> turn on forced outgoing encryption and disable legacy connections.

Thanks for the tip! I am tired of updating ipfilter.dat manually.