[noCensorship]
- From: wayne <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nocensorship@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, proxytools-users@xxxxxx
- Date: 10 May 2003 17:41:59 -0000
> From: Hat <hat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: nocensorship@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: proxytools-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [proxyTools-users] Re: [noCensorship] Few proxies on non standard
> ports
>
> Hello wayne,
>
> On 9 May 2003, wayne <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> From: Hat <hat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: nocensorship@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [noCensorship] Few proxies on non standard ports
> >>
> >> statProxy v4.27 report from xxxx:
> >> 168.9.253.251 :3347 P 9.3/?
> >> 170.224.224.101 :8000 P 9.1/?
> >> 170.224.224.133 :8000 P 9.1/?
> >> 170.224.224.37 :8000 P 9.0/?
> >
> >Interesting that these guys are blocking UAE access specifically.
>
> All are blocked?
Yes (I meant the port 8000 ones above only).
I tested (IIRC) 2 of the three. I assumed all.
> >Not the USA, not you.
> >How about the KSA?
>
> Any one from KSA?
>
> >
> >> 202.96.1.225 :8888 P 21.6/?
> >> 206.129.0.18 :2896 P 9.0/?
> >> 206.129.0.19 :9999 P 9.2/?
> >> 208.230.117.43 :8487 P 9.3/?
> >> 209.210.176.44 :8888 P 9.0/?
> >> 209.67.28.104 :83 P 9.0/?
> >> 210.131.177.253 :8000 P 9.0/?
> >
> >Your proxy 'latency' times still seem very high.
> >Was this all the proxies you tested at the same time?
> >Or did you remove all the failures?
>
> Yes, removed all failures.
Was the test set much larger than the result set you posted?
Just trying to see why these latencies are so high.
> >If it was a lot more, I can (maybe) understand this.
> >Or is your proxy 'latency' time always this high from there?
>
> Well, ya.. I noticed that the latency time is always "high" here... does
> that tell you something?
Latency time from proxyTools, or by some other measure as well?
I guess it's also very high if you are using SPP to test (say) just
one proxy?
Now that I've looked more carefully, I'm getting the same latencies
from the USA (even for the standard port proxies).
I didn't notice that before. I'm seeing at least one case where
the latency from the UAE is about 3 seconds, while the
latency from the USA is about 10 seconds. And that proxy is in
Seattle!
I need to investigate this further. I guess it's SPP
causing the problem, but I can't see how.
[...]
> >Any comments about SPP? Fast, slow? Unreliable?
>
> So far it looks to be fast and reliable to me. Maybe not fancy looking, but
> that fine!
True.
Damned if I'm gonna go thru that GUI stuff again!
LP was bad enough.
> >What do your normal scanners do that's cool (that I'm not doing
> >already in SPP)?
>
> ehem... wish list :)
Yep.
> Well, how about:
>
> 1. Delete bad results and timeouts
You don't want to know about bad ones at all?
I need those results to 'demote' ones in hosts.xml and (I and LP
users) need them for merging (updating) results to their config,
but I see your point for posts to lists.
ok. I added a '-p' ('pretty print') option.
The ctrl-c results will still show everything so far, but the
final results to the screen and file will not show anything that
failed on test 0. If you don't do test 0, this option is ignored.
I'll probably rethink that last bit, and make it display *any*
result line with a pass. :-)
> 2. Remove duplicates
Huh? I do this already. Doesn't it work for you? Examples please.
I've never seen duplicate IP addresses in the results.
> 3. Remove Proxy gateways
If an address works as a proxy, it's included.
I guess I don't understand what you mean here.
> 4. Find and remove FBI & US Army proxies
Safe mode (default) should already be doing this.
Is it not catching some? Examples please.
When you use SP in default mode, it uses old Craig's 'safe' proxy
incantations to 'safe' your list of proxies. You must specify '-u'
to make it behave 'unsafely'.
Ahh ... it won't find them if they are specified as IP addresses
in the list to check. You mean you want reverse resolution (IP
to FQDN) done before the safe check? A bit of work, but no
problem (you still need to put up with flakey name servers so
there's no guarantee of 'safeness' though).
Confirm if that's what you want please.
> 5. DNS Lookup in the same generated file result
All proxies tested are forward resolved for duplicate removal.
Do you want the reverse resolution printed as well?
I guess so.
The problem with that was that it needed to be in the comment area
(the proxies logically should be listed by IP address),
and it was often long, so it meant lots of line wraps for people.
I removed it a long time ago for that reason.
Also, the dns servers in most places are slow, so I would have
needed the parallel dns code from sortProxy to do that in a
reasonable time. At the moment, I'm only using single-thread,
non-blocking DNS code.
I also didn't see why it was very useful (asuming the 'safe' mode
works, so you know where the proxy is).
So ... that's the argument against it; comments?
> I know that many of these can be done by sortProxy. Maybe merging sortProxy
> code in SPP will do part of the above!
Only the DNS resolution, and I have other reasons for not liking that.
I'm not familiar with the user interfaces of other proxy scanners
though, so I'm happy to implement stuff as required. It's all fairly
easy with the new fully parallel test code. That was not the case
before (with SP, and almost all of the proxyTools).
--
wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://proxytools.sourceforge.net/
===8>============== noCensorship community ===============
List's webpage: //www.freelists.org/webpage/nocensorship
List's archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/nocensorship
To unsubscribe: nocensorship-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the
SUBJECT field.
Moderator's email: nocensorship-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
===8>============== noCensorship community ===============
Other related posts:
