I dunno how search results 're gettin' through the network. Never had a look at the source. But some modified hosts offer files you actually couldn't download.

Your client is trying to onnect over 5min.. In this time no other connections can be established.

Also the wishlist funktion is not working any more.

There are also modified hosts, that get a search request and return an result pointing to a spam file.

if it would be possible to block search results from these hosts those problems would be history.

And if it would be possible to export blocked host/results to a single plain text file those spammers would be excluded within days...

To block a host that sent a search result right-click (that's command-click or ctrl-click I think on Mac) on the offending search result and choose block host.

__________________
Morgens ess ich Cornflakes und abends ess ich Brot
Und wenn ich lang genug gelebt hab, dann sterb ich und bin tot

--Fischmob

Thanx a lot ^-^

...but those spamming servers change their ip daily, seems to be dial-upped...

I swear these modified nodes suck balls. And the worst thing is, there are people who download the spam and forget about it. ok, i can live with that part, but...

on a search for something totally obscure today...

12 hosts came up with spam crap. most of it is anti-privacy software, some of it is completely stupid.

blocking these hosts doesn't seem to do any good, they are 'honeypots' to attract people to see what they search for and spam their stuff or just record ip addresses.

its a pain in the ***, its the one thing i would want implemented more then anything else in a client; spam recognition and blocking. Since the file sizes are always similar, the client should just send out a few blind searches and see what hosts come up with stuff, and then create a list of spammers that each new node that connects can just block them.

BLOCK HOST only offers a single IP to be blocked, even when a "gobbledygook" search returns dozens of spammer IPs (all spam candidates for blocking).

The solution for Limewire should be simple to program. Add a radio button to the BLOCK HOST dialogue box popup. Something akin to: "DO YOU WANT TO BLOCK SEARCH RESULTS FROM ALL HOSTS IN THIS SELECTION".

If someone setup an hourly gobbldygook search and spammer host-blocking-IP list to hook into Limewire!, that would be ideal. This easy feature add would help us users who want to do something about spam to our setup. It can also be used by anti*****-types and parents to mass-block IPs offering certain filename keywords.

There is NO EXCUSE for not adding something this easy immediately!

Spare us "net congestion" whining. The search results have already returned lists of spamming IP hosts. ALLOW US TO ADD ALL RETURNED IPs TO OUR BLOCKED HOSTS LIST! We already know how to clear that banned hosts list if we make a mistake... Offering only the first spammer IP to block is insulting and time wasting. I'll just contribute to the net congestion repeating the gobbledygook search over and over and over and over and over and over...

Did you consider that many of these spammers may use dynamic ip's? Meaning your blocking of them might work for that day, but the next day, somebody who has adopted that ip ends up being blocked by a large % of p2p users. Not everybody uses a static ip.

If you're concerned about spammers then filter them out. The wmv & jpg results can be filtered out. Only compromise is if you particularly want to download something in that format. lol

Hello,

Thank you for your response, but we can agree to disagree on the need for something like this for three simple reasons:

1) Filtering out WMV and JPEG is unacceptable. Not everyone uses LW to leech MP3. I actively seek these media type, amoung others, and am bombarded by spam. Having to manually and individually consult Magnet to check content validity, is time-consuming in the extreme.

2) No one is forcing anyone to click my suggested (non-default) BLOCK ALL IPs RETURNED BY SELECTED SEARCH LIST RESULT ITEM. This is purely a convenience for those of us who choose to do something, rather than roll over and play dead. Spammers LOVE an attitude of complacency, but they poison everything they touch. They killed Usenet, they're killing Gnutella, they're building up on Torrents. I apologize for not understanding your complacency on the matter. Your cited technical reason *is* sound, but why not give us paid users a choice to control how we use our software? I would like to ban all the spammers too stupid to constantly rotate their IPs. That is my choice. My feature request was merely to have a small enhancement to a simple and existing tool . As it is now though, BLOCK HOST is useless for this purpose. As for my losing possible hosts offering desired content because they are on a blocked host, I am willing to accept that risk for myself. A blocked host only applies to MY client, and has no effect on yours or others. It's about choice, and the tools to manage our own affairs. And there simply is no good reason why we should not have that choice. It's also a choice for parents to block all reference to a particular search term too. Doesn't apply to me, but I support the freedom of parents to choose.

3) Rolling over and playing dead for spammers only makes the problem worse. USEnet is USEless, with groups flooded with spam and ads we pay for in download time (when headers hide their advertising content.) Yet we still see in all newsgroup readers, the OPTION to killfile a spammers address, even tho they create accounts daily there too. But for that day, at least, I will not have to suffer that set of jerkoffs.

It's not as if I'm not trying to solve the problem. I have a full HOSTS file on the O/S, blocking ads for browser, and use a P2P blocklist (Peer Guardian 2) with all known spammers added. But it's not enough... These cretins are ruining the internet, and calls for imprisonment and executions are growing in number.

Thank you for your time though. Won't you please help petition LimeWire, LLC to add this?

how about limewire use md5 and crc checking when downloading in a swarm fasion? when you download a file that is being swarmed, all hosts should check the md5 and crc of the file and send it, then limewire will pick the hosts that all match the same md5's (the majority of the hosts returning the same md5's will be picked). something of a smart-host checking.

this will definitley reduce the amount of riaa and mpaa fake files that they are pumping into the network(s) that they make to corrupt the swarm downloads (and individual files) because normally when i search the network for something that is rather popular (usually hosted by t3's) some files are genuine but the other hosts are "masking" as the real thing while only delivering fake content to screw up the swarm.

md5 is the way