[RC5] OGR motivations/achievements in general

Jason Hartzell jhartzell at arcataassoc.com
Wed Oct 9 16:53:55 EDT 2002

Personally I have no problem with the port change. Even if you are behind a
firewall where the port is closed, you can just configure the client to map
to 80 and you're done...works for me. And don't have to modify every client.
Just copy the ini file. Not a HUGE deal.

Better to have the users that don't maintain their crap waste bandwidth than
to have the Dnet proxy network waste processor time and storage on projects
that ended 4 years ago. They will probably be getting RC5-64 blocks returned
for 10 years.

And with that, I would really apprecaite an OGR client that works properly.
It is as important as preparing RC5-72. Personally I would probably rather
have RC5-72 delayed a bit, if it means that a proper OGR client could be
delivered at the same time. Even better would be the modification to
tracking stats that would rely on a D.Net UserID instead of an e-mail
address. Probably easier to put that in at the start of the RC5-72 project
than six months into it. But I really don't know.....


-----Original Message-----
From: waldo kitty [mailto:wkitty42 at alltel.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:15 PM
To: rc5 at lists.distributed.net
Subject: Re: [RC5] OGR motivations/achievements in general

i tend to agree with what you say... on the topic of the bandwidth
consumed by old clients running old projects and attempting to talk to
servers that aren't listening to them any more, someone needs to wake
TFU!! it's not "our" problem that they can't keep up with their old
clients... yes, i know that some may have been laid off and that they
may not have had any chance to remove those clients or to let anyone
else know about them... sadly, thems the breaks... if those entities
with those machines running those clients can't snoop their network and
see what's happening, they deserve what they have... one lemming can't
be wrong, right?

Richard Farmbrough wrote:
> I for one would like to start OGR-26 rather than needlessly re-hash OGR-25
> stubs.
> Then we can at least have one pass of OGR24-26 completed, subject to
> confirmation from the fixed client.
> I also agree with people who suggest we should stay with port 2064, there
> must be thousands of firewalls, proxies etc configured with that port
> number.
> Whether or not we do anything with work units form completed projects is
> relatively unimportant.
> There's also the bandwidth consumed by old clients/proxies repeatedly
> to deliver their results to a worldwide network of keyservers that are no
> longer listening!
> Live Life in Broadband
> www.telewest.co.uk
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not represent those
of the company. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of,
or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material
from any computer.
> --
> To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
> rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest

      (@@)                      Waldo Kitty, Waldo's Place USA
__ooO_( )_Ooo_____________________ telnet://bbs.wpusa.dynip.com
_|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____ http://www.wpusa.dynip.com
____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____ ftp://ftp.wpusa.dynip.com
_|_Eat_SPAM_to_email_me!_YUM!__|_____|_____ wkitty42 (at) alltel.net
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest

More information about the rc5 mailing list