ok, if the ip is something like 235.235.235.235 or 255.255.255.255 or
whatever, it means it uses UPNP.. UPNP is simply udp packages sent to a
specific broadcast IP, so I guess it uses upnp to detect if it's behind
upnp router.. but if there is no upnp router, then it must use another
way
to find whether it is firewalled or not (i think with upnp you can ask
the
router whether we're firewalled or not).
KKRT
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:14:19 -0400, Vivia Nikolaidou
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> fwd-ing phil's mail as he can't send from his sf address...
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 21:05:14 +0200
> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" < >
> To: vivia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Fw:Re: Proxy (was: Re: [Amsn-devel] WAKE UP EVERYONE!!!!)
>
> Hi,
> from my Uncle's home ;)
> I already did the sniff and found some interesting things but it seems
> it uses UDP to check the connection... Very strange... But anyway I
have
> the sniff and doesn't seem to be so complicated... It contains the IP
> adress in hex form and a port if I remember well... Not sure though
and
> as I am not at home....
> Phil
>
> > On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Youness Alaoui wrote:
>>
>> > why name subject 'proxy' ??
>>
>> because i am tiiiiiiiiiiired :) ok ppl, false alarm!
>>
>> > anyways, the nat detection is very important IMHO, not only do we
get
>> > thousands of reports about "ouhh, it says I'm firewalled", but
also,
>> in
>> > the case of an FT, if both use amsn, both are not firewalled but
both
>> > amsns think they are firewalled, they will use the SB, simply
because
>> > FTs don't work the same as webcams...
>>
>> yeah but it will work, even if it's slow!
>>
>> > disassembling ink will take years, same for audio clips and
'whatever
>> > fancy M$ thing', while nat detection is not that difficult maybe a
>> > simple sniff will give us a very simple solution, maybe not...
maybe
>> > we'll need the hostname of the port checker and for that, we'll
just
>> > have to disassemble and look for 'nat' in the strings the
executable
>> > contains.. maybe there's a proprietary hash that needs to be RE-ed
and
>> > in that case, it will take too long and at that point it's not
>> necessary
>> > anymore, we'll have to find another server than MS servers... but I
>> > still think it's worth it to spend some time on this issue...
>>
>> yeah, if you put it this way :) if we can find it without RE-ing,
sure!
>>
>> now who's going to sniff M$N? :P
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting
>> language
>> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live
>> webcast
>> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding
>> territory!
>>
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
>> _______________________________________________
>> Amsn-devel mailing list
>> Amsn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amsn-devel
>
>
>
>
>
> Accédez au courrier électronique de La Poste : www.laposte.net ;
> 3615 LAPOSTENET (0,34 /mn) ; tél : 08 92 68 13 50 (0,34/mn)
>
> Accédez au courrier électronique de La Poste : www.laposte.net ;
> 3615 LAPOSTENET (0,34 €/mn) ; tél : 08 92 68 13 50 (0,34€/mn)
>
