Source of a lot of garbage, Host 85.88.2.200
 

Everyone block Host Number 85.88.2.200. This a vandal clogging up results constantly. Can we not kick this person off somehow?

Why don't you post the portnumber as well so people can see for themselves. Or are we just suppose to take your word for it ???

And FYI a poll usually has options to vote both ways ;)

2 for Germany, one for Switzerland. Sounds european but proxies can change all that logic. A step by step test is required then which I haven't run.

If you feel so strongly about it, then ban that address. You can do that in your filters. It may well be a dynamic address, which means next week that user may have a different address. Perhaps totally different if via proxy. But then some sucker who adopts that address in turn finds they can't connect to many hosts because the ip they adopted for the week or few days is banned by many hosts. It's not as simple as it 1st seems.

$ telnet -N 85.88.2.200 6346
Trying 85.88.2.200...
Connected to 85.88.2.200.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Shareaza 2.2.1.0
Remote-IP: x.x.x.x
Connection: Keep-Alive
Accept-Ranges: bytes
X-PerHost: 5
X-Nick: Jironimo
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 51324

'nuff said.

Like the poll much better now :rofl:

What to pick...hmm I do like Pizza ;) and the poll makes a little more sense now ;)

And HyperKun I have no idea what the result of that was. Are you running Shareaza ? is He/they running Shareaza ? Tried that port in direct connect in Limewire (didn't work ???)

Come Baack. Not nuff said :sos:

Me running Shareaza? Are you trying to offend me? Why don't you Yahoogle for Jironimo?

Not in any way trying to offend you :)

Ty for the hint, so now it's clear that SnakefingerFan was kinda right in ranting a bit about that IP and setting up that onesided poll ;)

Here are the ping results for the host. Don't know if this will do any good.
Pinging 85.88.2.200 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 85.88.2.200: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=119
Reply from 85.88.2.200: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=119
Reply from 85.88.2.200: bytes=32 time=166ms TTL=119
Reply from 85.88.2.200: bytes=32 time=154ms TTL=119
Ping statistics for 85.88.2.200:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss)

geee...why don't you set the 'frequency' at ~5 seconds between pings, and bump the packet size to over 100...and do it infinitely....

trivia for the day: what's that? (hint: I've been known to do it to ppl I'm really p!ssed at!)

***edit***ok, so I'm bored...tried the above, and no go...hmmmm...oh yeah, turns out this IP is already on my firewall's blocklist...roflmao..so it is safe (as far as I'm concerned) to assume this IP belongs to a father raping, seven fathered son of a wh0re...

Oh the ping helps a lot! Somehow in some way. Or maybe not.

Blocking this host in your firewall might not be a bad idea but it doesn't really help to filter the results from this host one bit. That's why using PeerGuardian is fairly useless for Gnutella (and just opens another can of worms). It's about time that the LimeWire developers return from hybernation and add such (unfortunately) essential features as *internal* support for IP block lists. And I'm not talking about such bullshit as "Right-Click->Block Host".

If you wonder "why?". Simple, would you let a vet anyway near your guts? I, for one, wouldn't. The right solutions for the wrong problem never work.