ERROR: Malformed reply from SOCKS server
 

I am using Phex with Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar, behind a university firewall. There is also a SOCKS proxy. I can't connect to the Gnutella network. In the General Gnutella network window all the remote hosts line up, in red, with their status reading "connecting". Sooner or later they all time out with the message "ERROR: Malformed reply from SOCKS server".

I have filled out every field in the Proxy Settings window, using the settings I was given to set up my browser and email. Isn't that right? I've tried several tips I found in these pages: forcing ultrapeer merely increased the number of unconnecting hosts in my lists. Clicking the Query GWebCache, and maxing my bandwidth, didn't seem to really do anything at all.

Is it possible that my university's proxy is just blocking p2p in general? I've never tried any p2p client on this computer before (Phex works great on my home account on my home computer!).

That's my problem. Any help greatly appreciated.

Re: ERROR: Malformed reply from SOCKS server
 

Hello Photon,
I don't know. I had used Phex for a long time with socks but not with the internal socks client. (For now I've tested it and couldn't get it working also, maybe it's broken, maybe it's my fault.)
You can also try external socks clients (for windows it's the humminbird socks client I've used). MacOS is internally Unix so maybe the (properly configured) socksify command works.
Yes, some univerities are blocking P2P ports. You can use Phex with other ports (but most users are using the default ports), maybe you try a filter rule for ports 6346/47. But if they are blocking P2P they have their reasons and you should respect it (and you already have a working home account).

Helge

Re: Re: ERROR: Malformed reply from SOCKS server
 

Helge,

Thanks for your comments.

Yes, I agree. I just thought, since the error message indicates the SOCKS server, someone might be able to say "Yes, that message means XXXXX" and if it turned out that p2p is just blocked I could give up wasting time on it. I'm actually not interested in learning ways around the block (if it exists), for a lot of reasons . . .

Phex has a Socks5 protocol implementation which is not tested alot and might not work correct.

Since the lack of testing there are many different error messages for many cases used... so usually I should be able to clearly say what the problem is...

But I cant find your error message anywhere in the Phex source...
This seems to be a Java error mesage.. but thats strange too.... since Java should not deal and know about the SOCKS connection...

I have to research some more to get Java to stop messing with my SOCKS protocol ;)
...or maybe better completly switch to Javas own SOCKS implementation.

Gregor

Which Java version are you using?

Hello Gregor,
Yes, very strange. I found the message in JDK1.5.0_01s java.net.SocksSocketImpl. This class is used by java.net.Socket constructors. There are also new classes Proxy and ProxySelector. By default some settings are read with native code, so maybe with JDK1.5 java automatically uses a system wide configured socks proxy (e.g. evironment variable).

Photon, is the message still there if you turn off socks in the phex preferences?

Helge

Gregor and Helge,

I am using Java 1.4.1.

And yes, I get the same message if I turn off SOCKS.

Hello Photon,
OK, so maybe Java uses automatically the system wide proxy settings. You can try to turn it off in Control Panel -> Java -> Network settings. And if that doesn't help in Control Panel -> Internet Options -> Connections. (Or similar, these are just translations from a german windows version.) And then reactivate the internal Phex Socks client.

Helge

OK, I went to (Mac OS X) Systems Preferences -> Network -> Proxies and turned off all the Proxy settings. (I am on a network here, by the way.) With this, I didn't even get the hosts lining up in red, but in gray right from the start with the message "Error. Connection refused"
The same came from turning on everything EXCEPT the SOCKS Firewall. If I turned on the SOCKS Firewall only then I was back where I started.

I would like very much to see any further comments you can spare for me, but frankly I am not sure how much longer I want to pursue this . . .