Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[macias]

I wanted to post a wish to have the ability ban clients, but I spotted:
http://forum.amule.org/index.php?topic=9735.0

that this feature is wontfix by definition. That is why I am posting it here -- the explanation is insufficient for me.
a) why should I come up with gazillion of possible messages from client X, when normally (any useneted reader, email reader, ad block filter) you simply ban client, not the message -- so this is simplicity issue
b) there is "unban" feature in amule already, where is "ban" then? -- more like a bug-omission issue

From my POV banning clients (the same as black list in usenet reader) is the most simply, straightforward solution -- banning clients by creating messages is a actually workaround for the problem.

So... any chance for changing the amule policy for that, and giving the missing counterpart to "unban"?

Thank you in advance for your thoughts, or more elaborate explanation why it is wontfix, for now I don't see it.

Cheers,

[Kry]

The missing counterpart to unban is there. It's ban. The thing is, there is no manual ban, but you can manually unban automaically-banned people.

Manual banning is a exploitable feature that will not be added. If you look close in the last sentence, you'll see the explanation is right there.

[wuischke]

A message black list on the other hand would solve your problem and should be perfectly fine.

Something like a "Don't receive messages from this client" option.

[macias]

@Kry -- missing counterpart, let's say you manually unban a client. By mistake. How you ban him/her again? Still -- manual ban (as addition to auto) seems straightforward for me.

@Wuischke, yes, yes -- I would even opt for more strict meaning, "do not touch that client" (i.e. don't upload, download, talk, anything, simply "protect me from the guy/girl").

[Kry]

@Kry -- missing counterpart, let's say you manually unban a client. By mistake. How you ban him/her again?

If it does anything bad again, it will get banned again.

Still -- manual ban (as addition to auto) seems straightforward for me.

Not at all to me. You have not made a single valid point about why would you like to manually exclude someone from your network.

[macias]

If it does anything bad again, it will get banned again.

This is Apple/Amazon policy like -- "we decide what is bad/good for user and we delete content or not". User is not in control. This is bad for several reasons.

Not at all to me. You have not made a single valid point about why would you like to manually exclude someone from your network.

Because he insulted me and I don't want to have anything to do with him. You can call it shallow, but after all it is P2P network, so it is all about being social.

I also reverse the question -- what are the benefits of not having ban?

[myth]

Just ignore him?

If aMule would have manual Ban/Kick, it would be treated as Bad client and banned from Official eMule and others...I don't think this would be a great idea!

And then...he insulted you? Just disable messages from clients not on your friend list!

[macias]

I didn't know there is any official emule board for maintaing all emule clients. This explains a lot, thank you.

About ignoring -- it is not that simple, because what you meant are messages only, and what I meant is ignoring him completely -- zero traffic of any kind.

[wuischke]

after all it is P2P network, so it is all about being social.

I have to disagree. It's a P2P file sharing network and it's all about sharing files. Frankly, I would remove any chat capatibilities from the client, because I see no reason for them. (Don't discuss this, they'll stay as long as eMule supports this, afaik.)

Now, imagine you were in charge of the development of a file sharing network. Would you allow users or clients to ban whoever they want for whatever reason and let them hurt the network? I wouldn't and the eMule developers don't.

Your point of view is understandable for a socially motivated network. But it's not.

[Stu Redman]

what you meant are messages only, and what I meant is ignoring him completely -- zero traffic of any kind.

Well, I was about to suggest an option to ban messages from certain clients, but zero traffic is unacceptable. Think of Kad. It breaks down if people start cutting connections at random.

[macias]

@Stu,

I meant zero traffic to/from specified guy, not to/from whole network. For this particular guy it is the same, as I would be offline. I don't think it is danger here, currently there are equivalent ways to act like crazy (removing files after downloading) and the net is fine.

But irony, when you said about "random" it means that person is "crazy" category, and currently I (average user) don't have any countermeasures to get rid of the crazy people. Good one :-)

[GonoszTopi]

IPFilter

[macias]

Thank you for the hint, I didn't realize it. However it will only for static IP, with dynamic assignment the blocking occurs for another person.

[GonoszTopi]

Pretty much true. However, this the only thing you can do atm.

[Vollstrecker]

Would it be an acceptable suggestion to say something like every user could have a manual ban with a blacklist of 3 or 5 people? That wouldn't harm the network that bad, and the user can prevent sharing with guys that use a good client but he dislikes him personally.