Not only that, but unscrupulous people like the MAFIAA would seize on the
capability and get courts to force developers to pervert it to their own ends.

This is why control must be left to the individual and collective operations must
be kept voluntary, like Bitzi.

Upcoming anti-spam and anti-malware capabilities will be user operated, and it
will be up to users to decide whether or not to trust the various sources of
the blocklists they can find.

My feelings exactly.......It's called self-reliance and or individual responsibility.
People now days just seem to want way to much done FOR them in lieu of taking care of it themselves. Just give me the tools..I'll do it myself. I don't intent any offense by this post so please don't take any.

None taken. We all want the same thing here, and I'm perfectly happy to use the tools myself. I'm just thinking about the software and possible ways it could be improved, but yeah, I see where you're coming from.
I suppose I'm just trying to find ways around that, as it would make Limewire more "professional" and modern security wise. Could such a service be made optional, thus still volentry? That way, the legal route would seem less appealing as it could just be turned on/off, and even if the legal route was taken over the automatic downloading, it could be used to market limewire as a safe/secure way to distrubute music legally for users that would be worried by the prospect of ilegal downloads. Those less worried could just turn the service off. Or if it even got to that stage it would be well within your rights to make it a subscription service for the users of the professional software only, thus killing it off as no one would want it.

I have a feeling it's just one of those arguments I'm not going to win though, so I'll go back to the drawing board!

Ed

Me I LOVE tools so I have no problem with any LimeWire cares to offer. I don't think I've ever won any arguments in any forum I've ever been in. Nor do I think has anyboby else. So don't woory about it. lol

I win every time! I wonder why…
http://www3.telus.net/public/walkhoub/Axeman.JPG

Junkrating ???
 

This makes me have to ask why the junkrating on many GOOD files in my searches have a junkrating of 15-35 % ??

In the whole time that the junkfilter has been in the program I have marked 3 134.4 KB files as junk and maybe 10 of the 851.7 KB ones. Then why would the junkrating show on 700 MB files that I know are good ?? Shouldn't that be 0% then

All these files are good:

Attachment 2600

Better make that 51%

Been thinking about this size filter and I don't think it would work. I am seeing search results that include my exact search string as the file name or embedded in it. If the spammers can write code that takes my search and pastes it into the filename of their trash, what is to stop them writing code that would return random sizes or from padding that trash to random sizes?

It's in Phex and is working quite good there I might add. Not that I use Phex much but I've tried it

Sounds good then Sleepless. They will probably work around it in the long term tho.
I am now wondering if the host blocking might work better, if there was a list of bad sites that could be centrally maintained so it wasn't abused?

There is.

AaronWalkhouse is working on getting the programmers to have Limewire support the importing of lists.

Sounds like it may be possible allready in the next major version. (pretty soon)