After searching around on the forums for a while not finding much relevant stuff, I thought I'd submit a humble feature request. Should you have received one just like it before from someone else, consider this message a vote for it.
This request consists of three related, equally important parts:

1. When you right-click a file with multiple sources, the "block host" menu item should read "block hosts" and it should block all hosts for that file.
2. If you select multiple files, and you select "block host(s)", it should work as expected.
3. When hosts are blocked they should immediately be removed from all search result tabs. Files that are then left without sources should be removed from the search results. All connections, if any, to newly blocked hosts should be immediately terminated.

The rationale behind this is that LimeWire is getting rapidly unusable due to excessive spam. The primary reason this spam has a chance is that blocking hosts is unproportionally difficult in LimeWire. When I look at the average number of hosts per spam file, the nubmer of spam files, and the hosts hosting more than one spam file, I estimate that the above changes would make blocking hosts about a factor 100 easier.

you may want to try the suggestions in this thread: Problems with the search

__________________
If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!

AC (& 6_Pac)

After reading your post, and trying to understand what you are trying to achieve, I have come to the following conclusion:

If you are suggesting that the facilities you want should work only on your installation of LW then I am all for it.

If, however, you are suggesting that action taken on your installation of LW should be replicated across the whole gnutella network then I am against it.

Simply put, I would not want any user, no matter how good, arbitrarily saying which hosts on the network should or should not be blocked based on their own personal likes and dislikes.



UK Bob

I was not suggesting that these lists of blocked hosts propagate across the network automatically. First off, that would probably be totally unnecessary overkill and secondly, that would be an open invitation for jerks to ban *.*.*.*, their roommate who didn't do the dishes, or similar pranks. No, I was just suggesting to make the current blocking feature a bit more user-friendly.
That said, I would appreciate it if I could use PeerGuardian's blocklist in LimeWire, but I gather the devs are working on it. Currently it is possible for search results originated by IP's blocked by PeerGuardian to show up in the lists (this is caused by the way the network works). Although PeerGuardian will make it impossible to accidentally download such a file, it still pollutes the search results. But again, I hear the devs are on it.
Perhaps the devs could work together with PeerGuardian to make reporting IP's easy? Just an idea, don't know if it would be useful, or how much work or administration it would take to make sure that the IP's reported indeed need to be blocked. Suppose the MAFIAA would set up a cluster of computers that would in concord block a random user? How would you check for that situation? How is PeerGuardian's blocklist assembled?
But, again, my suggestion was just to improve the UI for a feature that on the technical side probably is already almost fully implemented.
P.S. 6_pac, thanks for suggesting that other thread; I have read many threads just like it on this and other forums. But I feel that this problem needs to be really solved.

AC

I understand that the beta versions of LW, Version 4.13.x, can incorporate block lists. When this facility is made part of an official LW release then I shall be one of the first to install it, and I will still continue to use PeerGuardian.


UK Bob