3 ms·

It's not about whether the client supports one non-essential feature or not. It's about a project that silently ignores a privacy-related setting, which then e

by bartvk 4y ago

It's not about whether the client supports one non-essential feature or not. It's about a project that silently ignores a privacy-related setting, which then exposes the fact that people download something.

wildmanx 4y ago
> It's about a project that silently ignores a privacy-related setting, which then exposes the fact that people download something. Which means that everybody who either doesn't use a proxy or does not care whether it's exposed what they are downloading can happily use Deluge. Using the term "nobody" you are exaggerating quite a bit, don't you think? Instead of complaining and demanding that others fix something for you for free who are not affected by it, please consider contributing a fix yourself.
- Fnoord 4y ago
  You can route a BitTorrent client through a VPN. I do this with Docker + rtorrent + Wireguard. I agree silently ignoring proxy setting is not cool but assuming it is used for privacy reasons is a stretch. I'm glad it avoids people route Deluge data through Tor though that also would not be the sole purpose.
- bartvk 4y ago
  Thanks for pointing it out — yes, using “nobody” is exaggerating and I’ve edited it. Note that I’m not demanding anything. Or complaining that it isn’t fixed. How could I? The person developing it, may have their reasons which I don’t know about. However I am pointing out the issue, because there are more secure alternatives out there, if privacy is what you value.
dewey 4y ago
There's 10 comments by the main developer (Cas) on that specific issue. I wouldn't call that "silently ignores". I support him on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/deluge_cas https://www.patreon.com/deluge_cas) where he sometimes posts updates but it's clear that he's very busy with other things (Including going through an illness) so I'm not blaming some open source maintainer for picking up a 10 year old, apparently hard to reproduce issue with a total of 45 comments. The client can be used just fine, except for a small buggy behaviour in case if you are using a proxy which likely isn't used by the majority of users.
- smcl 4y ago
  The application lets you configure a proxy, and then does not use the proxy. It ignores the proxy configuration without informing you. It silently ignores it. No amount of comments in a bug tracker changes that.
- bartvk 4y ago
  Oh but I don’t blame him either, it’s not a question of pointing fingers. Saying it’s “likely isn’t used by the majority“ is bad form, in my opinion. You don’t know that. I don’t know either, to be sure, but it makes me personally lose faith in the security aspects of the project.
my80thaccount 4y ago
I think they're ignoring it because in practice it is not much of an issue.
- bartvk 4y ago
  Some time ago, there was a Russian developer(s) who built a database that logged all IP addresses connecting to swarms. They then built a nice web frontend for it, to make it searchable. That’s how I found my IP address. If you think that’s not much of an issue, that’s okay but I definitely didn’t like it.
  - my80thaccount 4y ago

by bartvk 4y ago

wildmanx 4y ago

> It's about a project that silently ignores a privacy-related setting, which then exposes the fact that people download something. Which means that everybody who either doesn't use a proxy or does not care whether it's exposed what they are downloading can happily use Deluge. Using the term "nobody" you are exaggerating quite a bit, don't you think? Instead of complaining and demanding that others fix something for you for free who are not affected by it, please consider contributing a fix yourself.

Fnoord 4y ago
You can route a BitTorrent client through a VPN. I do this with Docker + rtorrent + Wireguard. I agree silently ignoring proxy setting is not cool but assuming it is used for privacy reasons is a stretch. I'm glad it avoids people route Deluge data through Tor though that also would not be the sole purpose.
bartvk 4y ago
Thanks for pointing it out — yes, using “nobody” is exaggerating and I’ve edited it. Note that I’m not demanding anything. Or complaining that it isn’t fixed. How could I? The person developing it, may have their reasons which I don’t know about. However I am pointing out the issue, because there are more secure alternatives out there, if privacy is what you value.

dewey 4y ago

There's 10 comments by the main developer (Cas) on that specific issue. I wouldn't call that "silently ignores". I support him on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/deluge_cas https://www.patreon.com/deluge_cas) where he sometimes posts updates but it's clear that he's very busy with other things (Including going through an illness) so I'm not blaming some open source maintainer for picking up a 10 year old, apparently hard to reproduce issue with a total of 45 comments. The client can be used just fine, except for a small buggy behaviour in case if you are using a proxy which likely isn't used by the majority of users.

smcl 4y ago
The application lets you configure a proxy, and then does not use the proxy. It ignores the proxy configuration without informing you. It silently ignores it. No amount of comments in a bug tracker changes that.
bartvk 4y ago
Oh but I don’t blame him either, it’s not a question of pointing fingers. Saying it’s “likely isn’t used by the majority“ is bad form, in my opinion. You don’t know that. I don’t know either, to be sure, but it makes me personally lose faith in the security aspects of the project.

my80thaccount 4y ago

I think they're ignoring it because in practice it is not much of an issue.

bartvk 4y ago
Some time ago, there was a Russian developer(s) who built a database that logged all IP addresses connecting to swarms. They then built a nice web frontend for it, to make it searchable. That’s how I found my IP address. If you think that’s not much of an issue, that’s okay but I definitely didn’t like it.
- my80thaccount 4y ago