(#1)
|
(#2)
|
(#3)
|
(#4)
|
(#5)
|
|
Know Your Enemy
![]() Posts: 830
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: On the edge of greatness
Reputation Power: 126
|
March 8th, 2003, 12:37 PM
Technically it's better, but don't ask me how to utilize those extra features, I haven't used it all too much, especially since I couldn't get into any of my favorite hubs w/ BCDC, maybe someone can help us out
*EDIT check out the link for details HERE |
|
|
|
(#6)
|
(#7)
|
(#8)
|
|
I say what I want
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 3,809
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: some town
Reputation Power: 504
|
March 8th, 2003, 12:47 PM
Quote:
along with scripts that block bcdc++ users, or only ones that throttle bandwidth, or dc++ users on more than x hubs, or sharing less than x slots, or sharing more than x slots etc. these scripts can be as specific or general as you make them--you can block certain clients, certain functions, whatever you want it's just more work than a lot of lazy ops are willing to do |
|
|
|
|
(#9)
|
|
Heh...
![]() Posts: 676
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dixie, U.S.A.
Reputation Power: 123
|
March 8th, 2003, 10:05 PM
What if one makes BCDC++ emulate DC++? That causes the client to show only the DC++ tags, and would probably eliminate suspicion. I don't like rules against bandwidth limiting. If my upstream is maxed out, then my downstream will die and I won't be able to do much of anything... even surf the web. So, I usually set it to a few KB/s below my max upstream to allow functionality. I think that's fair, since there's no reason in going into a hub if the only result will be the loss of your downstream while the hub leeches your files.
|
|
|
|
(#10)
|












Linear Mode