limewire doesn't work around a central server. it never has. that's why it's "peer to peer" filesharing. "peers" being the end user computers, that is,everyone on the network. client/server models don't work in filesharing, because if anyone uploads copyrighted or other unacceptable data, the copyright holders come n and have that server shut down.

as for what keeps up with the junk filters; the destination computer handles it. same as it does now. just with better handling. and sure you could make a hack to get around it.. but why would you hack around your own chosen filters? we aren't asking for network-wide systems to be implemented, just a more successful endpoint system.

the problem with checksums is that all they can do is verify that the file is the same as the one that is originally sent. yes if a virus is checksummed, and that checksum is recordd and blocked, it eliminates that virus. except that if you take the file and add a small block of random data to the end, the checksum changes. meaning the same virus in a slightly different wrapper keeps going.

basically the direction your checksum idea is moving in is that limewire should have a built in anti-virus, and while i don't think it would be so bad, that's a lot more complicated than i would expect the devs to have time for.

we're asking for improvements on the existing junk-filter system; a simple interface to assign more detailed rules, to better keep out what we determine is crap.

and the same as the current system, it doesn't matter what i tell my computer is junk; it's my computer handling it, and has no effect on what your computer sees as junk or 'good'. mass-junking, auto-junking.. whatever. it only limits that user's possible results.

bitiz ticket? i completely couldn't follow this part. is this a program i haven't heard of?

as for the last block;
viruses; no you can't filter that, you're right. the dev's don't have the time, i'm sure, to add a completely new and unrelated (to any existing programming) subsystem not to mention keeping it up to date and such.

size; in 20 years of working with computers, i've found that very few files actually have the exact same size without being the same file. if i were to point out "that 3,462KB file" in a room full of people dealing with this problem, i bet most people would almost instantly know the file i'm referring to.

not working right; well how can any filter determine this? it only works by actually trying to use it. but it might still be a perfectly legit program.

wrong name; again same thing. i downloaded "german techno - track 10" from somewhere once. turned out to be Eminem. but it was still a valid file.


i suggested things like..
-parts- of a name. like when spammers echoyour results back to you and append a specific phrase to it like "cute girl has shaking orgasm on webcam" -- being able to tell it "this is junk because of this part of the filename".

-exact- filesize match. 3,462KB shows up too often, and is never legit. 177kb. 399kb. etc. the files that keep showing back up with your search results echoed as the filename. currently telling the system it's junk only blocks that name, so it shows up again with a different name on your very next search.

....
actually y'know honestly these are the only 2 filters i want added. we can already filter by filetype so all those .wmv, .vbs, .bat, .pif, .scr, etc.. are already blocked.

and between filetype and filesize, i imagine we could catch 80% of the junk out there. 95% when you add in the "catchphrases". the other 5% ? well hell, nothing's perfect, and i'm prepared to handle those one-on-one.


oh and ... no. checksums are for determinng if the file you received is the same as the file was sent. if the file has a virus attached? the checksum will still be perfectly valid. it'll still say "yes this file transferred correctly". they aren't just clipping viruses on randomly before sending files. and if one file is blocked, they'll just switch it up.

as for auto-junking? uh.. what?
the junk filters exist on your system, and your system only. if you are having a problem with it, then you've mis-junked something. junking something doesn't send any reporting to the network.