[Nook Color Android Development] DizzyDen:
But you are coming across very much as being "thick". :rolleyes: We have had the discussion and you are VERY WRONG about MAC spoofing only being useful on a local LAN/subnet. I can write software to act as proxy and spoof ANY MAC address I want it to report. In fact many overseas private proxies do just that ;).

Even IF the theory were correct and the MAC was unique... which is NOT the case... can't be by sheer volume of layer 1 hardware out there prevents that. Even so... IF it were to work as the standards (they are standards, not policies) intend... To be perfectly honest... since we are CREATING an IMEI for a device that does not have one... using the SN... MAC... EAN... ANYTHING runs the potential for actually using someone else's "LEGIT" IMEI is there... THAT is specifically WHY I opted to utilize a "TEST IMEI" pattern... to minimize that potential.

That doesn't even get into the situation of I would still have to convert the MAC to decimal for it to wok... since it is 6 octets, it would translate to 18 digits... 123 456 789 012 345 678 which end do I cut from then? It would be the same issue... if I cut from left, I'm removing NIC manufacturer info... and could EASILY duplicate the MAC of another manufacturer that those hex words distinuish between them... or if I cut from the right I increase the odds of having someone elses 3 fold of what I am doing now (trimming 1 digit of SN vs. 4 digits of MAC).

Manufacturer A MAC address beginning FF could use the SAME MAC address of Manufacturer B, only by changing the manufacturer bytes... thus in reality the left side is not a good choice to truncate...

Manufacture has THOUSAND of NICs out there... if I trim from the right... there are 256 devices that would have the EXACT same IMEI... I'll settle for 1 in 10 devices as opposed to 1 in 256, thank you very much.

If you want to get into discussions of "Do The Right Thing(TM)" then this program would NEVER have come into existance.... the RIGHT THING is to have the HARDWARE manufacturers provide the IMEI for us... We are circumventing security measures, and without using the Test IMEI patterns, I am trying to keep it as "legal as possible" (TM). I still maintain the odds of any 2 people doing these things with their nook being within 10 in serial number being miniscual.

At this point... the "Most Right Thing"(TM) would be to stay loyal to the early testers and maintain the approach I decided in the beginning... UNLESS someone can provide a reasonable situation that should cause deviation.

Additionally, as my serial number begins with 2004... I TRULY doubt any sequential numbering system is in play.

You can always utilize the manual input method and create the IMEI you wish. Or even edit IMEI.fix or TelephonyManager.smali file directly.. they are both plain text.... BTW manual input was originally against my intent since it provides an easier method for someone to deliberately utilze a legit, illegal IMEI.

You can also feel free to write your own program to perform this function, and base the IMEI off of whatever you choose. It will NOT hurt my feelings in the least. I am providing a tool to suppliment work other's have done in providing framework.jar patches where EVERYONE using them had the SAME (albeit false) IMEI... I feel I have already very much provided that functionality and still have some tricks up my sleeve.

EXACTLY.... and at this point I desire all "you should use this to generate the IMEI" to be refrained from.... I will NOT justify my reasoning any further. The only further discussion regarding WHAT to use to base the IMEI off of should ONLY be made if you can provided SUFFICIENT PROOF of that method being better... which I cannot see any other items being any better than my choice.

BASICALLY unless someone can provide more than "you should do it this way because I think its better" I WILL NOT abandon the early adopters of this method.

That being said.... I am not totally closed minded... I just want SUFFICIENT reason to change before I will.

Now back to coding... this has taken FAR too much time to discuss the method to my madness.... over and over again.