I had cut the log file down to the issues that were actually present rather than include the entire file. I did this to save you time. If you are anything like me, you absolutely hate digging through logs looking for errors. I left 500 and 503 errors because they often indicate server configurations errors. As an example of this here is an entry from the proxy manager log
Code:
2/3/2015 3:29:34 AM: HTTP: 500 , SOCKET: Connection refused, Proxy: 107.23.43.44:80, Judge: http://www.sbjudge3.com/ip4.php
Your judge, sbjudge3, refused the connection. This could be overload, though the error logs will generally indicate too many connections, a misconfiguration, or some other unspecified server error.
I tried connecting to numerous sites through this proxy in other tools, and raw socket tools and they all said the same as ScrapeBox, connection refused.
A 407 error is not always a private proxy. 407 is the same error that you receive when the SSL/TLS certificate is missing or does not match. As an example:
Code:
2/3/2015 3:29:57 AM: HTTP: 407 Proxy Authentication Required, SOCKET: , Proxy: 94.182.162.242:8080, Judge: http://www.sbjudge1.com/ip4.php
This one was scraped with SB and most likely not a private proxy. However, when I feed SSL proxies into SB and test them with SB the same error is received. The bad part is that I had already tested the proxy with my proxy tester and know that it is not a private proxy. If I turn off the SSL in my proxy tester, I also receive a 407 error because of the inability to to validate the required SSL/TLS certificate. I even sent you the C# code that I use to approve certificates to show that all certificates are accepted. The reason I tested this is because you have added the SSL libraries.
Yes there's a few causes for a 407 but almost always, it's because the proxy requires authentication via a user/pass or by saving your real IP in the proxy servers configuration to allow access.
See here a connection through 94.182.162.242:8080:
http://i.imgur.com/lD0QdLh.png
This proxy you said your tester marked as good, i have tried connecting through it to sites such as Wikipedia, YouTube, Ebay etc in both http and https using a number of tools to completely rule out ScrapeBox and the ScrapeBox judges. All the time 407 and you can see the proxy is running Squid which is returning
<p>Sorry, you are not currently allowed to request
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol from this cache until you have authenticated yourself.</p>
The server is telling me i need to be authenticated, this is in another tool that has nothing to do with ScrapeBox but it's giving the same result as ScrapeBox. This is where i ended up last time, i did sink hours in to trying to create a problem but couldn't so it become time to move on to more pressing issues to get v2.0 finished.
Yes, Gscraper can post comments. However there are some serious problems with the poster. You can use the poster to post a comment to a perfectly clean and unspammed site in your control with GScraper. Within days, sometimes hours, you start finding numerous other people spamming the site. The sites I tested this on were my own sites, and unscraped with GScraper and the search engines were blocked in htaccess; the sites were just loaded from a file. Make of it what you will. I will say that anyone that uses the GScraper poster should not expect the sites posted to to remain private because everything is bounced off the servers in China even though the post and tests are conducted from the local computer. When you purchase the proxy service from GScraper, the proxies are pretested for anonymity, but do not expect your posts to remain private. Yes, GScraper will leak your IP if you are posting and using public proxies to do so. How the Gscraper proxy tester works is that the proxy end points are set up and then a test is made against a Google page and a string is looked for. If the string is present, the proxy is considered good, anonymity is never tested.
Yes i read someone say the same thing about their own proxies they created and used in GScraper, their proxy server started getting hits from China. If they sell AA lists and proxies, these have to come from somewhere i guess but i wont speculate on that.
ScrapeBox is a far superior product. You are not passing large amounts of encrypted data back to your servers, even in the beta I have seen no sign of telemetrics. They might be present, but I have never seen the need to even check with wireshark. You validate at boot and that is about it unless there is a reason to use your servers such as proxy checking, and even then I don't think you are doing anything but testing the anonymity. With your new framework (which I am curious which product you are using) you have overcome the socket hanging problem that plagued SB V1. With that framework, from observation, you could probably bump the number of proxy testing threads up over 200 with little problem.
Thanks and no, we dont send any data about a persons usage, sites, lists etc. I prefer it that way.
It says It is missing an activation. So it it still open to use?
Yes you just need a valid ScrapeBox v1 license on the PC you wish to use v2 and it should work without having to do anything, you can run v1 and v2 at the same time.
I haven't used SB for a couple of years now probably.. Looks like I will have to start using it again. 250k urls per minute is huge IMO..
SweetFunny, you should send out a mailing for this. If I haven't seen this thread I wouldn't even know that V2 exists
Thanks, at the moment though it's still not complete and we have opened a beta for people to try. When the v2.0 final is released i'll let everyone know it's available.