Zlobomir

I just would like to inform you that we have created an excellent set of guides already, namely: http://forums.apexdc.net/index.php?showtopic=4 http://forums.apexdc.net/index.php?showtopic=462 I admit I recently dropped the habit of answering automatically, true, it is not so user-friendly to paste a link, but it seems d*mn user-efficient and faster. :)

If smo could just explain a working way to do an "ipsend", it will solve the problem (for real IPs), although it will not be unattended. This problem is common for other apps also... Instructions are not so needed, there are F1 and Readme with the appz... About Kulmegil's: "...And PMs can be simply ignored by users who want to leech at max speed...." Yes, but the message can be repeated, and if no attention - some action to be taken, maybe disconnection from one of the slots. Actually, all this happens most often when the uploader is on 2+ hubs (even with one and the same nick) and the downloader just does not recognize him properly. In this case if not ADC, then BM will solve the issue, just a matter of time. :)

... and file size, in the future even quality (kbps, if possble)?

IMHO, as a very very small OP of a very very small hub, IF I like to have old clients in my hub, I SHOULD be able to communicate with them, and check them, although even more intensely than the TTH-checking ones, to ensure that files are OK. In my point of view, in this way I can be a really good OP. Not fighting for max. number of users, just for their sympathy. And SOME software, be it Apex or else, MUST not limit my freedom as OP. Otherwise I will be forced to do the OP work with an old, non-TTH compatible client. And if the hubsofts also start to behave nasty with non-TTH clients, I will be forced to stop upgrading the hubsoft. And this way back to the OS. Do you think it's reasonable, instead of just adding non-TTH support for the Apex OP client? Actually, do the clients have the "moral" right to leave the non-TTH support before the hubsofts?

More and more complicated, more and more resources. As I am thinking it all over again, why not really tear the chain between non-TTH and TTH cliens? They will not be able to download from us, we wont be able to download from them. If smo needs non-TTH compatibility, he may run non-TTH client for a moment (thus not necessary to sacrifice resouces all the time with non-TTH-compat Apex). And vice-versa.

http://www.pegasoft.cz/soft_down_free/sdc203.rar

Er, this is what I see in Transfers... The client gets TTH, then downloads files.xml.bz2 and then starts to download from the same users...

Hmm, multi-source makes you download the file lists of all the sources in order to Dd the file itself. Can't remember anything else...

Well, now it's up to the coders I think. Good job. If you have time, try with SDC++ 2.0, so we can warn BM about the issue.

Or maybe just add "Turn off multi-source" in RMB menu in Transfers? In this way, you can disable it for single downloads, while others run in multi-source mode. But may require more coding...

Isn't it connected with SDC++ 2.0? Peerweb is based on previous version. Could you please try with DC++ 0.674, Strong DC++ RC9 or RC10, SDC 2.0, and report results?

Maybe sender nick is not required to be included, since the receiver's client should disclose the nick, the client has already nick and user CID and may connect them.

Well, isn't it a matter of habit?

IMHO you have purely misunderstood my point. In several other topics I have explained more, and there you can check whether I am against any interoperability. Since you have already read all my posts, it is not necessary to give links. Anyway, if you need links, ask here. Below is a detailed comment of your post. I kindly ask you to give examples for such behavior, links please. I have never mentioned you since my registration here, so from my point of view you are completely useless. Still, I noticed that just now... Just a several posts above the one you have quoted, I have typed smth else. Read it if you like. Actually here is some example for who acts how: http://forums.apexdc.net/index.php?s=&...post&p=4698 I guess it would be better to PM my answer, but since you did not PM your comment, here it is. Cheers

Hello, The user DMaL asked me via PM to ask you about the the following scenario: 1. A passive user (X) tries to connect to another passive user (Y), hub is (Z). 2. After Z checks the X's mode, it sees that user X is passive. 3. Z turns to Y (like an active user would do), gets the data, sends it to X and vice-versa. IMHO, seen limitations by me: 1. It is probably mostly hubsoft-related than client-related (but there may be smth necessary to change in the client also). 2. Hub overload. 3. Centralization. Thanks to DMaL for the idea, I think it will be good if this can be implemented.

--OFF Your avatar agrees with you! --OFF

Yes, of course, it is even in the program, for the latest 0.3.0 in: see attachments. My personal tags, in case you like them.: Apex: /me + *DjamAmp v. %[version]* = %[state]: %[title] # %[percent] # %[elapsed] of %[length] # %[bar] @ %[bitrate] # %[sample] # %[channels] # Winamp: $caps2(*%artist%* [- "%album%"] [*%year%*] - [#%tracknumber%] "%title%") You can trigger all this with /w or /winamp in main chat or PM P. S. Crise: Who is doing the support? HTH

I have noticed that the Win Firewall behaves extremely nasty, especially with the upgrade type "replace *.exe and *.pdb".

A simple way I see is seamless communication with an Apex-dedicated server, smth like "ICQ in Apex". The two major disadvantages: 1. Will work only Apex-Apex (a good way to win more happy users ) 2. Don't have the slightest idea what hardware/network and/or financial resources it may require. I am able to provide some server with 100K most of the time, so we can test this at least, if you explain me VERY well what to configure. Or, I may let smo to do it with VNC. I am sure that Sidetrack will be also glad to help (we may do things with 2+ servers, for more reliability?) If it works, we could think of some more stable host. Sorry if too stupid. :)

http://forums.apexdc.net/index.php?s=&...post&p=8596

OK, my point is that a user with OLD client does not automatically mean that he is BAD user with corrupted files. Just like not each man with a gun is a criminal. So why we should add restrictions, leading then to "reverse-punish" via speed-mods, etc? With such mods I don't think we will be able to fix bugs or distinguish (easily) between Apex and Apex mods.

Yes, it is " .!ut " (no quotes).

А ты уверен что все потребители качают с Апекс? Недавно мы приобретили функция очень подобная на "super-seeding" в торенты.

Great job, I must say. I know its not much of a reward, but hey, don't we do it all for glory here? ;)

Another way is to "kill" the advanced pages. Will be clearer. ;)