Leaderboard

In a command prompt/PowerShell window: nslookup servername_exit.airvpn.org If you hover over it, you can see the error code and a short explanation. It's not about the ports. All your ports are forwarded to all connected devices, so when you open somename.airdns.org:12345 it can try connecting to the first device although you wanted to reach the second. It's not ideal, and the workaround is to stay connected to AirVPN on the server you're running Calibre on, finding out its exit IP and always use that. This also means to not use any of the *.airdns.org addresses to connect to AirVPN servers to not make your life difficult. Pick one and stick to it, it's a server, anyway. Please stop testing port 8080 from the outside, you'll never reach it. It's the local port forwarded to the internal 10.x.x.x address of your OpenVPN tunnel and therefore "invisible" to all connecting to the Calibre server. If it doesn't go through, check on which interface/address Calibre is listening. Maybe even disable all firewalls. If you use antivirus, disable all functionality of it temporarily as well.

Hello! We're very glad to inform you that on October the 10th 2019, we released a new version of OpenVPN AirVPN library fixing critical bugs affecting main OpenVPN 3 branch for Linux since years ago. Please see the changelog here: https://github.com/AirVPN/openvpn3-airvpn/blob/master/CHANGELOG.txt Critical bug fixes are essential to offer an OpenVPN AirVPN library based client on Linux. As those bugs remained unresolved for years in the main branch and made OpenVPN 3 de facto unusable in a safe way in Linux, we could not wait anymore. Therefore, we will be able to release a first beta version for Linux and macOS of a command line based, light-weight client software based on OpenVPN AirVPN 3.3.2 around October the 20th. FreeBSD and OpenBSD versions remain planned for the very near future. Kind regards and datalove AirVPN Staff

So despite not wanting to answer Staffs recent replies, will you nonetheless link to or otherwise openly acknowledge the exchanges made in this thread, on your website and/or in your original review? I think it's healthy for visitors to be able to get both sides "versions", if you will. Thank you for joining up and being willing to explain your position .

@ThatOnePrivacyGuy Thank you for your extensive reply. Unfortunately, we think that it does not address our corrections at all. First of all, this is not the original sentence of your article, The original sentence is: "Do a search for “AirVPN review” and just try to find one that isn’t written by someone paid to do so." which clearly suggests that an overwhelming majority of reviews are paid by us. This is false and defamatory because we don't pay for any review. Additionally, at the moment of this writing and at the moment of the publication of your article, most of the reviews did/do not even contain a referral link. Tom's Hardware, Torrentfreak, vpnMentor, your own and even other reviews you can find on the first Google Search page are all reviews which not only have not been paid, but do not even include a referral link. Therefore, if the aim of this thread is having a fair exchange of opinions to improve both sides, we would recommend that you do not apply old rhetoric tricks (admitting that a sentence is wrong to replace it with a different but equally false sentence) to twist your sentences in the mind of the readers, according to your own requirements of trust and transparency and your calls for "ethical" behaviors. This is your opinion. We can respect it but we can't share it. The requirement of a disclaimer for a review including a referral link is in our opinion correct and we already ask for it to our few, major referrals (who have of course the right to refuse if the applicable law for their web site does not require that). Of course we can't check all the referrals, it's humanly impossible, but we check all the referrals that refer to us more than 5-6 users per week. The referrals who don't refer any user to us can be checked randomly, but of course have a lower priority since they don't harm anybody. About copyright enforcement we are in total disagreement. In the first place we are not copyright enforcers. It is not our duty, not our competence and not our will. Under this respect, your requirement is in our opinion unreasonable and legally unsustainable . And since you stress a lot on "ethics" throughout your whole message, we think that your requirement is contradictory. Copyright is one sector of the wide set of different laws and international trade agreements pertaining to intellectual monopolies, which in the last century have been severely damaging innovation, harming and limiting freedom of expression, imposing barriers to seek and impart information and access to culture, science and art, and above all have been causing and are causing millions of deaths and dreadful suffering to hundreds of millions of people. We can discuss endlessly about the horrors and the good of intellectual monopolies, but asking us to act as a copyright enforcer against some third-party web site is not only unreasonable under a legal point of view, but also unethical, because we would become a small part of that huge "machinery" that promotes one of the set of laws and one of those "mind attitudes" which are one of the causes (and not a negligible one, for what you can see in the last decades) of humankind pain especially in developing countries. Let's leave this task to the "competent authorities". That's correct. If you have time, please feel free to inform us if some review containing a referral link infringes the legal framework of the European Union on this subject. While we check all the referrals which bring to us customers, it's impossible for us to check all of those that don't send referred persons, so we leave the task to the public authorities who have the competence and duty to do so. Last but not least, feel free to cite the reviews that in your opinion talk about our service with undeserved terms. We ask because we usually see that the reviews, even those that contain referral links, miss the strong points of our service, in our opinion - but of course we underline that it's impossible to read them all. Kind regards