Page 1 of 2

Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:31 pm
by Dazzle_2
Folks I though we had seen the last of this sort of childish anti-p2p antics from Bluetak but no...
This is the blocked range - - Time Warner Telecom

This is our WinMX p2p site

This IP is the domain of and Bluetack have a malicous history of blocking it and the WinMX peer caches, once again can I ask any WinMX user to uninstall Peer Guardian 2 until the Phoenix Labs folks point to a respectable blocklist.

If you are a soley WinMx user then there is no need to have PG2 installed in any case as it is an out of date solution to the needs of the network, it is'nt after all able to read inside network traffic packets to block network attackers nor do Bluetack have a special team for locating dangers to the network, the fact is the WinMX community does.

My reason for posting this here is that by blocking our main site they are not only denying folks WinMX programs and help information but worse, they are denying users of other patch types access to our blocklist and thus allowing network attackers to infiltrate the network and steal users bandwidth as well as helping the RIAA thugs kill the network by making it impossible to locate required content, is this really the work of self-styled p2p guardians defending the internet from potential p2p threats, no one here thinks so.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:08 am
by IslandGirl
winmxworld isn't the only innocent site that is included in Pg blocklists run by blutak. Many ordinary p2p users have reported their ip included in blutak lists and when they've tried to get their ip removed have been treated abusively by blutak admin. At one stage they were even blocking winmx caches.
Peerguardian is a powerful tool, unfortunately the creator of it is long gone and the list controllers have been corrupt for years. Winmxworld ip is currnetly listed in the PG antip2p list as being part of Time Warner.
It would be a good thing if PG list controllers were investigated and the corruption got rid the meantime don;t use peerguardian!

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:02 am
by tig
This is getting crazy. This is not the first they have blocked people from web sites or even been able to share information between people.

I know of ISPs been blocked for no reason at all. This needs to stop.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:29 am
by tiny4eva
Well nothing new here, "is that one gig blocked????".

I cant see what the problem is with these guys/gals. Is it because their is a 100% effective blocklist published at this server, probably just a sour grapes issue but something like this causes so many problems for the winmx network itself you could call it anti p2p itself. As Dazzle pointed out correctly alot of hostfile users access the site to download the blocklist to their PG2 programs and blocking that ip renders their protection useless. Nice one Bluetack, i just popped over to your site for the first time in ages and your even asking for donations to keep you running. So how much did the R.I.A.A pay up for that entry, Once money comes into the picture so does coruption, such anti P2P activity leaves me with only one solid thought, another fallen into the pocket.

Its about time someone who knows what they are doing stepped up with their own lists. I dont know why other P2P network adminstrators dont come forward and ask how we detect them the second they join the network and have them blocked live within 5 mins. If they all added simple methods of detection a proper list could be made that blocked who its suppose to block, not just who they dont like or feel threatend by.

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:06 pm
by Aaron.Walkhouse
Image This paranoia and false accusation against Bluetack is pitiful.

All we have here is more exaggeration and innuendo by a few
vividly immature people with personal grudges. They still cannot
accept the fact that the people at Bluetack are actually reasonable
and responsible adults who sometimes, though rarely, have to refuse
some demands when they come into conflict with the needs of
everyone else.

All we have here is a range that was blocked for long term and chronic
anti-P2P activity and somebody came along much later, chose to use
a hosting service with an established anti-P2P history and demanded
that everybody else's protection be dropped for his benefit alone.
The idea of moving from one cheap service to another is just too
much to take, so the grumbling and griping goes on for more months
and the gullible are told to stop protecting themselves with blocklists
just because one grouch can't get along with reasonable adults or
accept a rare decision to hold a block in place for the benefit of the
entire P2P community instead of placing one person above all others
just because he built a website for P2P.

If somebody got into a genuine dispute with them about a Level 1 or
Level 2 block, would that person be willing to reveal how he behaved
and show the posts he made at Bluetack on the subject? I have seen
very very few disagreements over there and without exception the few who
could not accept the team's decisions were always extremely immature kids
who simply rushed in with demands to be obeyed and when unsuccessful
in attempts to bully staff into breaking policy out come wild accusations
best kept under their leaky tinfoil hats.

Let's see some real links to actual evidence to support these bogus
and rehashed accusations by a few rare individuals who found it
impossible to deal with that group of adults as adults themselves.

It's pretty stupid to complain about blocklists when both PG
and PW can whitelist any site with a single click and the use of
permanent personal whitelists in either firewall and in most P2P
software is easy to teach to absolute beginners. The Win/MX site,
for example, could easily have a script download selected blocklists
every night, apply their own whitelist and have all of their members
set their software to download updates from them every night
instead of directly from Buetack. This isn't rocket science. They're
just text files and the whiners already have all the tools they need to
customize lists to their hearts' content, so there's no excuse for whining
about big, bad blocklists bullying them off their own sites.

Will the anti-blocklist cultists be accusing Bluetack of trying to
shut down whole P2P networks next? :roll:

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:59 pm
by MrFredPFL
well, aaron, let me ask you something. is it impossible to change the block from through to through and through

i would HOPE that not blocking legitimate sites and addresses, which can be easily shown to be not anti-p2p, would be a high priority.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:50 pm
by Lady Ray
LOL, riiiiight.

First of all it's blatantly obvious to everyone around bluetack, that their lists are as irresponsible as you can possibly get. What you and they can't seem to understand is that IP's get allocated to things that may at some time years ago been used for antip2p activity (and trust me this is giving beyond reasonable leeway here) but now may not be controlled by those same 'antip2p' activists.

Sure bluetack are about as reasonable as a pitbull on steroids that's had his favorite chew toy taken from them. Adults listen to reason. Adults reassess situations and are capable of taking instances and situations on their merits. Adults that make block lists might actually consider the responsibility to not only correctly identify anti p2p sites and IPs but to also be able to correctly identify innocent sites and IPs. All of the above Bluetack has never been accused of.

What we have here gentlemen is a failure on the most fundamental scale to use common sense and sensibility when dealing with offering your average joe user some security. PeerGuardian default install lists contain over a billion IPs. The reason for this large number of IPs? Because Bluetack lists are like Hotel California, once an IP is determined to be 'hazardous' its placed on their lists and NEVER removed. I have yet to see them remove ANY IP ever added. P2P systems operate on the pretext that there will be users out there with files, the more users with files you want the better right? Well so far Bluetack think we should remove over a billion of those potential file sharers, this number is increasing exponentially and removing more and more file sharers daily. Does this sound like it's in the interest of p2p networks?

I would most certainly advise users not to kid themselves into any false security that bluetack offers which to me is far more dangerous then any lack there of.

Let me tell you about the disagreements as defined by your beloved bluetack. I am responsible for the Blocklist that WinMX uses to block MediaDefender and keep those fakes out of the avg users searches. At one time years now ago, Macrovision was also flooding fakes onto WinMX. They were quite crafty and for a long period of time injected themselves onto the network via legitimate DSL IP addresses from varying companies such as BellSouth, BT Broadband, Tiscalli, to name a few. Without permission or consultation BlueTack was using My list to add IPs to their lists. Great you say, until you realize that these IPs were used for an average of three days, then as any other DSL IP were then reallocated to regular joe public users of that ISP. I went to BlueTack and very positively and happily informed them of this mistake, assuming they just didn't understand the dynamics of how this was working and the turn over of the IPS, I also at that time gave them a hefty list of static ranges, corporate ones. I was abused, and basically told to get over it. Those IP's are STILL on the lists. Not to mention the subsequent addition of all peer caches the users need to connect and so and and so on. I'm not alone I've sent untold amounts of regular folks just trying to use WinMX that cant because of PG use with BlueTack lists, to the site to have IPs removed and they have also been abused and shamed as if they had done something personally themselves to the members of Bluetack.

How they operate is shameful, childish, moronic, and I wouldn't recommend a program that used their lists if it was the only firewall, antip2p, security, breadmaker dvd combi on the face of the earth. People are much safer and have much more use of the Internet using their own common sense instead of trusting the likes of Bluetack for security.

I wish they would take the job and trust of users more seriously and act like responsible adults.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:20 pm
by Dazzle_2
I,m sure Aaron is more than familiar with my last Bluetack Conversation found here. ... 15428.html

You,ll note I was courteous throughout and still to this day have not heard from them the name of the winmx expert they claim to have had "look into things". Lets be honest here these ppl are technically incompetent and their block-list is just one big increasing list that will choke p2p to death as its just a matter of time till they block the entire Internet.

Aaron is a sensible guy on his own favourite network (Bearshare) but that counts for litle when you cant answer any simple technical questions regarding the one under discussion, I wont be making block-lists for Bearshare and thus I wonder why Aaron feels folks should trust a block-list compiled by any old anonymous BISS member who does a bit of googling and presents their "evidence" for inclusion to the block-list, I,m not aware of any double checking or any network specific teams that would improve the quality of the lists dramatically, in short this list is being used to abuse a p2p network and whilst we hear a lot of speeches about "any IP could be removed manually from the lists" this is utter BS when the only site that is likely to tell you that is the one being blocked, am I the only one with a brain BISS ?

I used to urge folks to get PG and use theses lists but once spat on is enough, twice is an insult and three times is war, there are many good folks who work on those lists and their time and effort and worst of all the users trust is wasted, stop the abuse and clean up your act before the lists fall completely into disrepute. As I stated some time ago I have no further trust in your anti P2p activities but some do so ignore the message at your peril.

Btw Aaron how can this be a false accusation if the IP/site is in fact on the Blutack p2p block-list ?
I have posted my last effort to resolve matters at Blutack, I also have a copy of a forum post of a more abusive nature deleted from the BISS forum for some strange reason, now you can read for yourself how technically inept those folks are when it comes to winmx, must we continue to pay for BISS's ignorance ?

So I don't have to post 3 or 4 times refuting further lame claims please read the older thread on this forum that contains the answer to every question you could reasonably ask.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:31 pm
by Aaron.Walkhouse
The replies above by WinMX World dogmatists prove my point. An old grudge over nothing much is transformed over a couple of years of increasingly irrational posts (at the WinMX World forums) into a secret conspiracy to topple WinMX and all P2P networks. Just because one decision didn't go the "right' way a few years ago and they couldn't handle it the current dogma is that up is down, day is night and Bluetack operatives are secretly protecting Macrovision and MediaDefender from the holy warriors of WinMX World while plotting to block everything connected with WinMX World just because they don't like a couple of the people. That's so bizarrely self-delusional and paranoid it doesn't even climb to the level of good healthy well-fermented bullshit. Image

The false accusation I referred to above is clear and it is not about what number appeared in what list or when. That TWT commercial range still belongs exactly where it is for the same reasons as all the others in that same list, Time Warner is a major player in the entertainment industry, is active against P2P and that range is still in their exclusive control. The accusation is that it was somehow wrong to not split that range on command, putting the convenience of one tiny site above the security of everyone else who doesn't use WinMX. In the meantime, users of WinMX are routinely helping each other with the extremely simple task of whitelisting the few places important to themselves and the WinMX software's operations. They are having no difficulty whatsoever even though they are ignoring the edicts of the self-appointed and are still using PG and PW as usual.

Another closely related set of false accusations habitually going around WinMX World ever since is that IP addresses and ranges are never removed from the lists, that corrections of any kind are rare and "polite" requests are likely to result in personal retaliation. That couldn't possibly be farther from the truth. Anyone can see for themselves in the daily routine over there that the vast majority of requests for a correction are routinely and quickly handled with no fuss whatsoever.. If anyone thinks they can do better they can prove it by becoming an IP Hunter take full part in maintaining the same lists.

Another bogus complaint by some self-proclaimed "experts" is that the level 1 list is blocking "hundreds of millions" of innocent users. Somehow we're all still using P2P of all kinds with no problem despite that huge number, so perhaps we're not living on the same planet as those millions upon millions upon millions of unfortunate souls who can't use P2P and apparently can't tell us about it either..

Some people seem to think it's a huuuuge disaster to be in a blocklist. :roll: Since WinMX World is obviously still uip and running at full speed and supposedly affected users are still participating there it should be obvious that it was never more than a minor inconvenience to that tiny group. The simple fact is that a relatively small number of people use any lists at all and those people tend to be smart enough to learn how to whitelist a single IP address in PG or PW. Most of them don't even need to check the help files because the feature is available in the GUI of both with a minimum of effort. PG can even be set to let you surf with complete immunity from the lists it has loaded even while still blocking them from any other software on the same computer.

No, this is the same old personal grudge being aired again by a tiny and inconsequential group of perpetual malcontents for no other reason than to fill their need for attention. Perhaps they need to start up another one of their perpetual internal squabbles to scratch that itch. Those who cannot or will not educate themselves properly on this subject shouldn't bother lying about any part of it because they are always discredited by their own words and actions.

As Moore said two years ago at Bluetack, I will repeat here because apparently it still applies as accurately as it did back then:
Guys we clearly don't agree on anything here and I'm not interested in proving anything more to you..

Besides everything I have already stated , the illegal DDoS attacks on our site were taken quite seriously and cannot be ignored..These actions are under further investigation.

We can only assume that the widespread trash talk about our site is part 2 of the plan by someone in your groups attempt to take us out, and justify those actions by passing the blame, anyway they can, for whatever twisted reasons they may have.

There is no place on the internet for any groups who actively engage in malicious activities/attacks against any other sites, or any sympathy for the people who blindly support those activities.

Thanks for visiting , you are more than welcome to discuss any other topics on our forum, but this subject is now closed as will any other related new threads on this.

Our decision will not be reversed, no matter how many DDoS attacks , lies, threats and abusive comments are launched against us.

By the way. Bluetack didn't block WinMX World in the first place. They blocked a very large anti-P2P company on September 14 2004 and that range has never budged since so being blocked "yet again" is two lies in one because WinMX World actually blocked themselves by choosing to rent space at TWT (which was blocked more than two years before that site ever opened), and since they never left that provider the block has never lifted so it could never have happened "yet again". This thread has been mistitled because that one small website may have WinMX as part of it's name but it is not WinMX and certainly does not represent WinMX users as a group. Slyck is not an appropriate forum for the continuance of this insanely libellous conduct, apparently repeated two years later for no other reason than the amusement of a few who apparently have some personal problems to sort out amongst themselves. Image

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:51 pm
by MrFredPFL
perhaps we're not living on the same planet as those millions upon millions upon millions of unfortunate souls who can't use P2P and apparently can't tell us about it either..

aaron, i have been involved with p2p for many years. over that period of time, i have personally seen lots of filesharers blocked by these blocklists. has it been millions? of course not, but i have no way of knowing how many it is. i think it's a safe assumption that if i have personally seen dozens, there are many more.

The accusation is that it was somehow wrong to not split that range on command, putting the convenience of one tiny site above the security of everyone else who doesn't use WinMX.

please forgive me, but this statement seems... odd to me. let's say the ip is removed from the list. if a person does NOT use winmx, how exactly does the removal of that ip from the list put them at risk?

what i see in your post is a lot of carefully chosen words with high negative connotations. to me, this tends to indicate that your emotional bias in this matter is as profound as the bias you accuse the MX people of having. if they are arguing emotionally, and without basis, and trying to use propaganda to sell their side of the story, why not rise above that yourself? to do otherwise simply adds more credibility to what you say is a pack of lies.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:26 pm
by Aaron.Walkhouse
Forgive me for being blunt about it, but these jokers are spouting the same lies and innuendo they did two years ago. Even back then most of the people who conversed with them noted quickly that they were clearly locked into their fantastic conspiracy theory and weren't at all able or willing to concede any of the bizarre arguments they had put forth. Never at any point could anybody tell them any different from any one of the obviously crazy ideas they had seized upon and anyone who tried was accused of either gross stupidity or wildly implausible conspiracy.

That these few nutjobs (yes, nutjobs) still cannot get past such ridiculous fantasies and are still attacking Bluetack for a situation which is entirely their own fault is bad enough, but to try to drag this long-expired libel into Slyck for no reason at all will tend to get me bringing the axe out for a quick polish. I won't apologize for confronting such obvious wankers and I will never hesitate to do it again if needed. In this case, though, I suspect Tom may have even stronger words for those who tried to revive this nonsense on his forums because he had warned them the first time. They didn't even come up with anything new and still obsessively post links to threads which, instead of bolstering their imaginary argument clearly highlights their obsessive and paranoid behaviour and the reasonable behaviour of all who attempted to deal with their comically overblown complaints.

aaron, i have been involved with p2p for many years. over that period of time, i have personally seen lots of filesharers blocked by these blocklists. has it been millions? of course not, but i have no way of knowing how many it is. i think it's a safe assumption that if i have personally seen dozens, there are many more.
A few people incidentally blocked over a period of several years does not surely imply many more right now, does it? In fact, if we were able to see all of them there would probably be very few overall and virtually none who couldn't get past it in short order. You had no problem helping people connect to you when they were blocked, didn't you?

If it was just occasional blocks you spotted in the logs you cannot really know if those persons were actually inconvenienced or if they even even noticed that they were downloading from 84 people instead of 83. In fact, you cannot really know how many more spammers, trojan farms, fake farms and anti-P2P groups were blocked in the same period because it's on the order of tens of thousands of hits for each one that may have been innocent. The odds are pretty good for the innocent and the benefits of using blocklists is clear, especially when you see how much time and bandwidth is saved over the course of a day.

There was an implication that huge numbers of residential customers were blocked. It's simply not so, has never been so and never will be. In fact, the only people I have seen blocking entire residential ISPs has been WinMX patchers themselves, in efforts to block anti-P2P flooding of searches that exploits a serious weakness in WinMX itself. Hopefully they are using a more tightly targeted and responsive temp blocklist with instant updates by now.

If you ever see anyone blocked on a range which appears to be covering a residential ISP don't hesitate to report it to Bluetack. They always want to know when a legitimate ISP moves or opens a range that was blocked for legitimate reasons earlier. I see it quite often. Whenever any range or individual address is blocked, the reasons are stored in the database so if the range changed ownership it will be immediately obvious when compared to current DNS records. The list involved will then be updated by the next cycle, which I think is still early in the morning on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, or at least you will be told why not.

please forgive me, but this statement seems... odd to me. let's say the ip is removed from the list. if a person does NOT use winmx, how exactly does the removal of that ip from the list put them at risk?
What can you tell me about the physical server currently assigned to that site? Can you, or even the people who rented it, tell me exactly what that server consists of and name the other customers and software sharing that server. Can anybody guarantee that the owner of that server, a massive media company which actively and loudly hates all P2P in general, has never or will never do anything like snoop on it's traffic or use other virtual servers on the same IP address to launch their own peers on networks the WinMX users aren't involved in? Are you willing to trust that undeniably hostile company with your own P2P traffic?

No, even if it was reasonably certain that no ill would result this one time, it is always monumentally unwise to break fundamental policy on public safety and poke pinholes in a high-risk range for anybody at all, much less those who have taken every opportunity to show a severely damaged capacity for reason as well as a strong tendency to tell outright lies to the public and the people they are trying to manipulate. These ones even do the very act they falsely accused Bluetack of carrying out, namely blocking Bluetack on their own short lists solely out of spite. No, security will always have to take priority over such requests, even if we did trust the people involved; because the hardware is still in hostile hands which could conceivably take advantage within hours of seeing such a security breach handed to them voluntarily. I'm not being paranoid and saying TWT will do something bad. I'm just saying it's unwise to take such a risk and break sound policy for the convenience of any group or person, and thats precisely what they were told in the first place.

Who could trust Bluetack if they had opened access to one of the largest and most powerful media conglomerates in the very list that is supposed to block them, solely on the word of unidentified individuals with something to gain? What do you think the Slyck article on that story would look like? Image

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:48 pm
by MrFredPFL
A few people incidentally blocked over a period of several years does not surely imply many more right now, does it?

no, aaron, it does imply exactly that. because i am one user on one small and insignificant network, and see only the tiniest sliver of the filesharing pie, a sliver so tiny no percentage would properly express it. why would i for a moment think that the same situation is not repeated over and over among people i have never seen, since they constitute such a huge chunk of the whole? you say large numbers of residential customers are not blocked. my experiences simply do not allow me to believe that. [edit- i see you said "huge". i don't know that i'd call it huge numbers myself, but i have no doubts the numbers are large.] if you want so say the false positives are an acceptable cost in view of the goal, that's a different discussion altogether. but please don't portray it as something rare. it's nothing of the sort.

and no, i don't wrongly guess they were blocked by this, and not something else. inquiry and testing demonstrate EXACTLY what the problem is, when you can disable use of PG or the like, and suddenly connectivity is magically restored. as i believe you once said, it's not rocket science to figure out what THAT means.

question: do you use any kind of blocklist manager? like PeerGuardian?
answer: yes, i do.
question: what happens if you disable it? can you connect now?
answer: wow, yes i can! thanks!

inevitable conclusion: well, i think it's pretty obvious ;)

sure - i was able to help those people. how about the all the people who never ask why they can't connect to someone? or ask someone who doesn't know the answer? you say the people who are blocked can easily have people whitelist them - but that's not so easy when they are blocked from communicating to begin with, is it? how many never have any idea what the problem is?

the bottom line - it seems to me that your viewpoint is at one end of a spectrum, and you are balancing views which offend you from the other end. as is nearly always the case, i am betting the truth is somewhere in between ;)

and again, i'd like to comment on the manner in which you choose to discuss this matter. please eliminate the namecalling. thanks.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:18 pm
by Dazzle_2
I think Aaron makes the point once again regarding why you cant trust Blutack and its p2p blocklist, make that you can trust them, block p2p.

Nice to see you come out of the closet Aaron, unlike yourself, I and others have a simple interest in ensuring folks can use the WinMX network, whatever names you call or allegation you make the matter is rather simple, you and your colleagues are blocking a p2p networks operations, if this doesnt concern you then anyone else using PG with BISS/Bluetack lists should be very concerned.

You asked for proof of my prior discussion with Bluetack and when it was provided by the simple expediant of posting a link you happily jumped over the conclusional posts, that BISS was blocking a p2p site because of malicious gossip, this really does sound like a kangaroo court you guys hold over there.

I will of course be making a call for many more folks to take the time to ensure your p2p blocking activites are well publicised around the net, no one likes a cowardly bunch of underhand desposts whether they call themselves RIAA , MPAA or Bluetack.
Any WinMX user knows our site does not advertise or take donations unlike BISS so we know who is really gaining financially from scaring folks that 1/3+ of the net is the RIAA etc.
Anyone who can read can discover why PG is virtually useless for protecting the WinMX network, let me post the link again so you have no further reason to remain ignorant.

Please read this Aaron as I have a simple question for you to answer when you have done so : Can PG parse encrypted WinMX Packets and retreive the IP embedded in the packet ?

As you know Aaron this is a two tiered network and thus an IP blocker alone is useless, your only likely to end up blocking the primary delivering the info, not the attacker on the other tier, thus your rhetoric about IP blocking is fatally flawed. This folks is the kind of ignorance we face when dealing with these self appointed IP "cowboys", plenty of talk but not about the topic in hand it seems.

The long and the short : Dont expect to get any peace until you resolve your anti-p2p activities.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:31 pm
by tig
This is not only web sites we are talking about.

If I connect to anyone that is using pg2 i can not connect to them. My isp range is blocked.

I have tried numerous times but, i always ask if they are running pg and than i need to find someone else to connect. I have even had trouble with msn when they have been using pg.

Bluetack please look at your lists a little more carefully. I know of plently of people that thought pg was a great program until they started blocking a lot more isps than they should be.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:34 pm
by MrFredPFL

enough namecalling. any further posts which indulge in it will be removed in their entirety.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:45 pm
by IslandGirl
I don't konw about any old grudges but if blutak has a personal grudge against some winmx users, surely the blocklist shouldn't be the place to fuel it? it's true you can whitelist ip's in Pg but not alot of users kow how to do this and it still begs the question, why are ordinary users who have nothing to do with anti-p2p on the blocklist in the first place?
Pg is a powerful tool and lists should be compiled responsibly

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:37 pm
by Data

I as a longtime user of WinMx am yet again disappointed at the Tatics of Bluetack Listings. When are they going to realize that people will always do what they have to for filesharing ? It's a given right to all users of the interent to explore interests and do what they want. I suggest that we report the Ip's of Bluetack servers to the reporting dept. haha. No seriously Bluetack needs to look at what they are doing against the p2p network. Surely people can whitelist the ip range of wmw in the PG 2. but why should they need to? The Tatics of BlueTac have to be stopped before there's 2 billion Ip's in the list. and Too many Innocent people suffer the blocks without even knowing. In the meantime I am going to spread the word of this activity of Bluetack and suggest that all people Uninstall PG2 and use an alternative product. Shame on You Bluetack !!!!

PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:34 pm
by Aaron.Walkhouse
Bluetack has no agenda in this at all. Their position has been clear from the start and it has nothing to do with any of the behaviours and tactics of the unreasonable group you see here. The only people holding a grudge and lying about it are the tiny group at WinMX World, and that is probably a tiny minority of their total membership.

The facts are clear. They are lying about somebody else in public and using Slyck to do it.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:29 am
by Dazzle_2
Folks would of course be more likely to trust Bluetack if they actually had records of what they claim, so far we have heard a few different stories about why this IP is so dangerous even though they themselves freely admit the IP is not their complaint, its the ISP they claim owns it, so by logical deduction they can unblock the IP if they chose.

If numbers are being removed from the blocklist then why is it still growing at 1,000,000,000 + IPs so far, up 100 million from last year ?

The most important aspect of this failed blocklist is simply this, those using a scattergun list such as this are not being protected from anyone, take the Davenport Lyons thread for instance how many folks believed they would be safe using PG ?
The simple fact has been you cant rely on a any blocklist to protect you 100% unless you have inside info on your enemies deployments, Bluetack do not have such information, knowing a few of the folks that have helped compile add numbers to the list I,m in a decent position to speak about how they gather the IPs to be blocked and over the last year they have taken mine and other folks criticisms on board slightly by making more efforts to gather decent records (Aaron has actually been one of those pushing this forward so its disappointing to hear him make untrue allegations based on the words of his colleagues ), its no longer acceptable at BISS to just throw a few IPs onto the list, anyone claiming due diligence in prior times will no doubt be surprised to hear PG/bluetack have over the years blocklisted themselves more than a few times.

I will be publishing two archived pages from the BISS forum that have been removed some time ago that clearly show that they not only didn't know how the winmx network operated but also had zero concern for blocking the network or its users,I think folks will be interested in seeing what Bluetack has to hide and why they instruct folks asking about why winmx world is blocked to use the only RIAA friendly network damaging solution there is, the out of date host file, proffered by, having decided long ago to clean up their act and use a 100% up to date blocklist, something that's never been available from BISS.

You cant argue with the truth Aaron, btw try doing your homework before committing a libel/slander against myself or anyone else at winmxworld ,take the time to find out who is operating winmxworld before making false claims, we democratically take turns to operate the site and host it, we are all after all volunteers and make no revenue from our activities and while BISS make a nice slice of pie from scaring folks into blocking aliens etc we have to work hard to pay our bills and we do so out of commitment to our fellows, not our bank balance.

Those are the facts folks , according to BISS this "tiny site" and its 200k + p2p users are not important, these are the same "tiny sites" that helped PG usage become more widespread, this is one case where size is not important, its simple ideology, do you support P2P or do you not, there is no third option.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:56 am
by tiny4eva
I think it would be easyer if they just started again, sat down, said right, this is the old list, this list will be here for a month or two before we take it down, and a new list will be available before the old ones departure. Its not difficult to check out IP's. Thier is nothing wrong with being paranoid, but your lists really do need cleaning up. Their really is no need to block a whole companys IP address's just becase they are anti P2P. If you seen them ranges actaully doing something wrong then i agree you hsould block them but when was the last time you seen any of these companys actaully doing something, The media defender ones fly along happily but Game store websites and book shops, i mean come on WTF. Its all a little too drastic in my eyes, Mediagroups, active flooders, company ranges that are actaully in the game of catching fileshares shold be on thier, but most i can see on their are rediculous, has any of you actaully looked at the lists? i seen a nuclear power plant on one of them, i mean come on, why would you block that, some poor bored scientist cant even download a film while stopping nuclear meltdown, poor him lol.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:25 am
by Moore
Hello my friends. :)

Lets try to seperate the facts from fiction here. I'm sorry to disappoint some of you but we do not work for satan anymore, and some of us do prefer a reasonable conversation as oppossed to flinging S**T tennis matches across the internet.

We did not go and intentionally block the whole Time warner range just to get at winmxworld users. For that we could have just blocked the individual IP itself.

From what I can see the time warner range in question has been in our database since at least 2004. domain name was created 2005-04-21. We gave you no special treatment here, our target is simply TimeWarner, a very major US entertainment company as Aaron already pointed out. We do our best block all known anti-p2p related companies thoroughly.

Some may find it hard to believe but they are a fairly determined employer of a little company some of you may have heard of called baytsp.

We list all similar known companies/individuals that are actively working against users of filesharing networks, a comprehensive list of these kinds of companies can be found on our forum in the anti-p2p research section for registered members only.

Since there are a wide range of lists available for varying levels of threats, some users tend to use them all without considering the consequences and will find many things blocked they might not actually agree with. Our blocklists do not suit everyone and they are not a one size fits all solution.

The common attitude of the more lists the better is something we struggle against, and we do advise people to be selective in their choices when we can. Some people obviously don't agree with how we do things with our system, but we have never forced anyone to use any of our free services or programs, they are just there if you want them.

Feel free to boycott anything you like, also feel free to participate peacefully in the management and conversations regarding the contents of the lists on our forum.

Things are constantly re-assessed in our database, unfortunately due to the enormous amount of IP's in the IPv4 address space alone [ over 4 billion ] some things can take a little while longer to get sorted out.

Again some people want more to be blocked and some people want less. I read in someone's IRC quit message recenlty that the sure path to failure is to try and please everyone. We just do what we can with our zero budget and limited resources.

To be honest since the last DDoS attack that lasted 2 weeks against our site from our previous encounter with some winmxworld members I would hesitate to intentionally do anything to provoke any more hostility that we and other sites have faced in the past.

But let's concentrate on the current problem. If someone had of just pointed this problem out to us instead of accusing us of everything short of murder [ or was that in there somewhere ? ], we could have been able to do something about it sooner.

In a show of good faith I will research the EMC Telecom Corporation range further and also split out the winmxworld's site IP address for the next update, to help clear up any possible misguided perceptions that we are holding a grudge of some kind.

I pray that you will all find inner happiness one day, try not to waste too much time on the internet and live a long and harmonious life, enjoy your friends and family, procreate, multiply and conquer your surroundings. Don't forget to vote.

If anyone has any other problems they would like to share with the "terror" lists you know where to find us. No better time than right now. There have been many changes recently at BISS and still many more changes are on the way.

Moore :howdy:

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:20 am
by Dazzle_2
Thank you Moore I am happy to hear you will be looking into what you can do that may resolve this current impasse we find ourselves in, should you find you are able to aid us in this single instance we will of course ensure our visual pg tutorials are restored, we are as I said a small volunteer site and yet many rely on us, I conversed to you some years ago on your own forum and was made aware of your issues regarding king Macro, he is no longer a member of the site or the winmx community and thus there is no possible reason to expect foul play.

I wont pretend that I dont have reservations about the size of the blocklists but I am aware changes to how it is being compiled and the quality of the reporting are being made and support that. I have in the past been a user of these same lists and was happy then to see someone was at least making the effort to try to protect the filesharing communites, I'm also happy to see that you have decided to review and perhaps refine your policy slightly to allow a reduced impact on us.

Thank you for being understanding in this instance and hopefully we need not be at cross-swords any further in the future.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:06 pm
by piXelatedEmpire
What an interesting thread.

Re: Bluetack Blocks WinMX (Yet Again)

PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:22 pm
by MrFredPFL
Moore wrote:accusing us of everything short of murder [ or was that in there somewhere ? ]

:lol: yes, i believe it was ;)

thanks for the feedback, moore :D

would i be correct if i inferred from your comments here that it is not a set policy to block all IP addresses provided by Time-Warner?

PostPosted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:29 pm
by Aaron.Walkhouse
He just stated explicitly that it is definitely a set policy.

We do our best block all known anti-p2p related companies thoroughly.

We list all similar known companies/individuals that are actively working against users of filesharing networks, a comprehensive list of these kinds of companies can be found on our forum in the anti-p2p research section for registered members only.

He is making an exception for the site and giving them a chance to stop the insanity. Image