Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Using tags to add and remove trackers
#1
Deleting dead trackers lead me to adding live trackers. Then I realized I should not add public trackers to my torrents from my private trackers. so my current setup is a tag 'foo' with this constraint: !hasTag( "private1.com" ) && !hasTag( "private2.org" ) && !hasTag( "private3.net" ) &&  !isComplete()
to which I merge a tracker template, called 'added trackers'.

Unfortunately at least some (looks like maybe all) new private tracker torrents get the public tracker list added.

So I set my 3 private tracker tags to remove the tracker template called "added trackers". The first tracker on the list does NOT get removed.

This is very strange because I have a template called 'bar' with the same constraint as 'foo' which removes the tracker template called 'dead trackers' and as far as I can tell the first on the list does get removed.
Reply
#2
The the tracker in question is

udp://9.rarbg.me:2710/announce

I moved it to the bottom of the list with the same result that it does not get removed. It seems the :2710 is the problem as when I go to remove it manually is is always something else of the form :27n0 where n=2..9

Other trackers that end with :80, :1337 and :6969 seem to stay fixed. I'm not sure what is so special about :2710?
Reply
#3
There shouldn't be anything special about a given port number, they're all treated the same.

Could it just be an ordering issue? There is no deterministic order that auto-tags are applied in, so if the 'remove-trackers' was applied before the 'add-trackers' you'd end up with them being added and not subsequently removed.
Reply
#4
There is something about udp://9.rarbg.me:2710/announce that is causing the problem.

-I add a torrent from a private tracker
-the tag 'foo' gets applied to the torrent. The constraint of 'foo' is that there should be no private tracker id tag but it appears that 'foo' gets applied first
-'foo' has the action of merging/adding a list of trackers > 7 trackers get added
-the private tracker id tag gets applied.
-I have added the action of removing the same list of trackers to the private tracker id tags > 6 trackers get removed

I have tried having udp://9.rarbg.me:2710/announce first, last and in the middle of the list. It is added but never removed. When I go to the sources tab the port number is changed to one of 2720/2730/.../2790/2800

Many public torrents already have the rarbg tracker so I have removed it from the list to get rid of the problem.
udp://9.rarbg.me:2710/announce
the '9' and '0' are the only things that look different to the other trackers so I am guessing they might be the source of the aberrant behaviour.
Reply
#5
OK, I looked into it... and you're right. The reason though is that there is a 'standard' for a tracker to tell a client that it should use certain protocols/ports via a DNS TXT record. For 9.rarbg.me we have:

    9.rarbg.me -> [BITTORRENT UDP:2740, BITTORRENT UDP:2710, BITTORRENT UDP:2720, BITTORRENT UDP:2770, BITTORRENT UDP:2780, BITTORRENT UDP:2790, BITTORRENT UDP:2800, BITTORRENT UDP:2730, BITTORRENT UDP:2750]

(you can see this in the evidence.log file generated when you create a debug.zip file)

See http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0034.html

In your case the 2710 is being replaced with 2740 as that is preferred.

I will add a special case port of 0 that will cause the port to be ignored when removing trackers - i.e. you would place

udp://9.rarbg.me:0/announce

in your removal template - check the next beta!
Reply
#6
Actually, no change is required

Matching is done by prefix, so if you just enter

udp://9.rarbg.me

in your removal template then this will remove any URL that starts with that string.
Reply
#7
That actually all made sense to me. Thanks.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  using IPVanish with Vuze mattyts 1 166 01-03-2017, 03:43 PM
Last Post: fitzter00
  Webtorrent wss trackers not working garycee 14 315 01-03-2017, 01:47 PM
Last Post: parg



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)